NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

ARNEZ LOUIS GONZALES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0088

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2015-153343-002

The Honorable John C. Rea, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jeffrey L. Force

Counsel for Appellant

Arnez Louis Gonzales, Phoenix

Appellant

FILED 4-18-2019
STATE v. GONZALES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Arnez Gonzales timely appeals his convictions and sentences

for one count of burglary in the first degree and two counts of armed 

robbery, all of which are class 2 dangerous felonies. After searching the 

record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not 

frivolous, Gonzales’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking 

this Court to search the record for reversible error. This Court granted 

counsel’s motion to allow Gonzales to file a pro per supplemental brief. 

Gonzales filed two supplemental briefs but raised no discernible legal 

issues. After reviewing the entire record, we find no reversible error. We

affirm Gonzales’ convictions and sentences. 

BACKGROUND1

¶2 The victims were socializing in their apartment when 

Gonzales and an accomplice entered and threatened them at gunpoint.

Gonzales and the accomplice stole three glass marijuana pipes, mason jars 

containing marijuana, a PlayStation, two cellphones, a set of keys, and a 

wallet belonging to one of the victims.

¶3 After trial, the jury convicted Gonzales of one count of 

burglary in the first degree and two counts of armed robbery. It also found 

aggravating circumstances for all three counts. The superior court 

sentenced Gonzales to a less than a maximum term of 12 years’ 

imprisonment for each count. All sentences were consecutive, and the court 

awarded Gonzales 791 days presentence incarceration credit.

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s 

verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Gonzales. State v. 

Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). 
STATE v. GONZALES

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶4 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Gonzales received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at 

all critical stages.

¶5 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdicts. The jury was properly comprised of 12 members and the court 

properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Gonzales’

presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of 

a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a 

presentence report, Gonzales was given an opportunity to speak at 

sentencing, and his sentences were within the range of acceptable sentences

for the offenses of which he was convicted.

¶6 Gonzales argues he is “the beneficiary of this constructive 

trust [a]ccount and the creditor” and that “[n]o Judicial Courts, nor Judges 

have existed in America since 1789.” He also contends that “[t]he public is 

bankrupt” and argues “[i]f this [g]oes any further than this, [then] this 

Court has [c]ommitted [f]raud.” He does not indicate how his arguments

relate to his convictions or how they constitute a cognizable defense. We 

reject the arguments raised in Gonzales’ supplemental briefs as they have 

no legal support.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm Gonzales’ convictions and sentences. Unless 

defense counsel finds an issue that may be appropriately submitted to the 

Arizona Supreme Court, his obligations are fulfilled once he informs 

Gonzales of the outcome of this appeal and his future options. See State v. 

Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Gonzales has 30 days from the date of 

this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.