STATE OF ARIZONA v. LONNIE JAMES RODRIGUEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LONNIE JAMES RODRIGUEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0136 Filed April 27, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20182663001 The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Chief Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Lonnie Rodriguez was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, two counts of attempted aggravated assault of a minor under fifteen, discharging a firearm at a residential structure, unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits, and drive-by shooting.1 The jury found all but drive-by shooting to be dangerous offenses involving the use of a firearm. The trial court sentenced Rodriguez to a combination of concurrent and consecutive, aggravated prison terms totaling sixty years. ¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating she has “reviewed the entire record and was unable to find any meritorious issue to raise.” 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.2 Rodriguez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1001(A), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1209(A), 13-1211(A), 13-3107(A). In June 2018, Rodriguez sent several threatening messages to his girlfriend, R.J., who had been trying to end their relationship. Rodriguez warned R.J. that he would go to her mother’s 1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Rodriguez was also convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. 2 Counsel contends that “Anders requires the appellate court to review for any error that might warrant relief—fundamental or not.” The Arizona Supreme Court, however, has limited our review to fundamental, prejudicial error. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). 2 STATE v. RODRIGUEZ Decision of the Court house and “mak[e] a ruckus,” reminding her that he had a gun and stating that he hoped she “told [her] brothers good-bye.” R.J. notified her mother and stepfather, who later heard the distinctive sound of Rodriguez’s loud car engine, followed by several gunshots; also home at the time were R.J.’s two younger brothers, ages six and twelve. All four were scared and took cover. Officers later found a bullet hole in the garage and two defects in the brick wall of the house, which was located in the Tucson city limits. ¶4 The record also supports the trial court’s finding of at least one historical prior felony conviction.3 The sentences imposed are within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-704(A), 13-708(A), 13-1001(C)(2), 13-1204(E), 13-1209(D), 13-1211(A), 13-3107(A). ¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, prejudicial error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Rodriguez’s convictions and sentences. 3In the course of our review, we discovered that the record on appeal did not include the transcript from the trial on Rodriguez’s prior convictions. We ordered that transcript and gave both counsel and Rodriguez leave to file a supplemental brief. No issues related thereto were subsequently raised. 3
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.
