STATE OF ARIZONA v. CARLOS V. MUNOZ (pdf)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CARLOS V. MUNOZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2021-0115 Filed August 10, 2022 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Santa Cruz County No. S1200CR201700017 The Honorable Thomas Fink, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Scott A. Martin, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MUNOZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Vice Chief Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Carlos Munoz was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child, sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen, sexual assault, and child molestation, all committed against his twelve-year-old step-daughter. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive and concurrent prison terms totaling life plus twenty-seven years. Munoz appealed, and this court affirmed his convictions but “vacate[d] his life sentences for sexual assault and sexual conduct with a minor and remand[ed] for resentencing under § 13-705(C) on those counts.” State v. Munoz, No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0309, ¶ 1 (Ariz. App. Aug. 21, 2020) (mem. decision). On remand, the trial court imposed an enhanced, maximum, twenty-seven-year prison term on each of those counts, to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the sentences on the remaining counts. ¶2 In this appeal from the sentences imposed on remand, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no “arguable issues for appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Munoz has not filed a supplemental brief. We conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-705(D), 13-1401(A)(4), 13-1405(A), 13-1406(A).1 ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error in regard to resentencing and have found none. Therefore, Munoz’s sentences are affirmed. 1Section 13-705 was amended in 2021, which resulted in changes to the letters of its subsections. See 2021 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 202, §1. Because the amendment did not substantively change the subsection relevant here, we cite to the current subsection. 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.
