STATE OF ARIZONA v. DIEGO ACOSTA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DIEGO ACOSTA, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0053 Filed May 26, 2021 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20191124001 The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Erin E. Duffy, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. ACOSTA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. E S P I N O S A, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Diego Acosta was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, mitigated prison term of six years. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating she has reviewed the record and was “unable to find any arguably meritorious issues to raise on appeal.” Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record,” and has asked us to search the record for error. Acosta has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the jury’s verdict, see State v. Miles, 211 Ariz. 475, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4). In March 2019, officers stopped Acosta for a traffic violation, and, during a subsequent search of the vehicle he was driving, they found a loaded nine-millimeter handgun under the front passenger seat. Acosta admitted the gun belonged to him. He had previously been convicted of a felony, and his civil right to possess or carry a firearm had not been restored. ¶4 The record also supports the trial court’s finding of two historical prior felony convictions. And the sentence imposed is within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-3102(M). ¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, prejudicial error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, Acosta’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.