Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2014-001829-001 The Honorable Karen A. Mullins, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Paul J. Prato Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
¶1 Rafael Zamorano appeals his convictions for aggravated assault and disorderly conduct. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked us to review the record for reversible error. See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339 (App. 1993). Zamorano was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 T.H. drove her daughter, M.H., and cousin, E.J., to a restaurant. The restaurant's small parking lot was full, so T.H. parked at an angle behind other parked cars and waited in the car with E.J. while M.H. went inside to order food to go.
¶3 Zamorano and two other men walked out of the restaurant to their Chevy. Zamorano yelled, "[B]___, move out the way, " and he and T.H. began yelling at each other. By then, T.H. had opened the driver's side door and was standing up, facing Zamorano. M.H. returned from the restaurant and stood near the passenger's side door, facing Zamorano. Zamorano stated, "I bet you'll move fast now, b___" and pointed a gun towards the women. T.H. and M.H. got into their car and drove away. They noticed the Chevy behind them, so they pulled over and called the police. Officers found an empty holster on Zamorano's person and a gun in the backseat of the Chevy.
¶4 Zamorano was charged with aggravated assault against T.H., a class three felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 13-1203(A)(2) and -1204(A)(2), and disorderly conduct against T.H., M.H., and/or E.J., a class six felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(6). A jury found Zamorano guilty of the charged offenses and found that both counts were dangerous offenses. The court sentenced Zamorano to 6.25 years' imprisonment for count one and a concurrent term of 2 years' imprisonment for count two. Zamorano timely appealed.
¶5 We have read and considered the brief submitted by Zamorano's counsel and have reviewed the entire record. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find no reversible error. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory range. Zamorano was present at all critical phases of the proceedings and was represented by counsel. The jury was properly impaneled and instructed. The jury instructions were consistent with the offenses charged. The record reflects no irregularity in the deliberation process.
¶6 The record includes substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts. See State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552 (1981) (In reviewing for sufficiency of evidence, "[t]he test to be applied is whether there is substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict."). "Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 290 (1996). ...