NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JOSE RENE SORIANO-TORRES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0468

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-145854-001

The Honorable Karen L. O’Connor, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix

By Eliza Ybarra

Counsel for Appellee

The Hogle Firm, Mesa

By Dana R. Hogle

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
STATE v. SORIANO-TORRES

Decision of the Court

2

G E M M I L L: Judge:

¶1 After a one-day bench trial, the superior court found Jose 

Rene Soriano-Torres (“Defendant”) guilty of one count of aggravated 

taking the identity of another and two counts of forgery. On appeal, 

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his 

convictions. Defendant also argues the trial proceeded in violation of his 

Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. For the reasons that follow, we 

affirm Defendant’s convictions and the imposition of probation but vacate 

that portion of the sentencing minute entry that requires Defendant to pay 

the cost of the testing of his DNA.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On appeal we must view the evidence at trial in the light 

most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts. See State v. Nelson, 214 

Ariz. 196, ¶ 2, 150 P.3d 769 (App. 2007). Rene A., a detective with the 

Yuma Police Department (“Victim”), received notice from the Internal 

Revenue Service (“IRS Letter”) in August, 2012 informing him of 

unreported income in 2010 that he purportedly earned while employed by 

One80 Painting in Peoria. Because Victim had never worked for One80, 

he feared someone was unlawfully using his social security number

(“SSN”), and he reported the incident to his co-worker, Detective Huntley, 

who investigates financial crimes.

¶3 After reviewing the IRS Letter, Huntley telephoned One80 

Painting and talked to CB, the company’s office and accounting manager. 

CB informed Huntley that a current One80 Painting employee was 

working at the company under Victim’s SSN, and indeed, the employee 

was working that very day. CB immediately transmitted to Huntley 

copies of three employment records One80 maintained in connection with 

the employee (“Employment Forms”). The Employment Forms included

a signed and dated portion of the employee’s employment application, a 

completed federal W-4 tax withholding form, and a completed state A-4 

tax withholding form. The Employment Forms are dated October 29, 

2010, and they bear Victim’s name or similar names.1 The federal tax form 

 1 The employment application forms used the name “Rene Alonso.” The 

W-4 form used the name Rene Alonso and Victim’s social security 
STATE v. SORIANO-TORRES

Decision of the Court

3

was completed using Victim’s SSN, and both tax forms indicate the 

employee’s home address in Phoenix, a city where Victim had never lived.

¶4 Upon receiving the Employment Forms, Huntley called the 

Phoenix Police Department, which dispatched Detective Kriplean to locate 

a painting crew foreman named Rene at an apartment complex. Kriplean 

proceeded to the job site and approached Defendant, the painting crew 

foreman, who provided Kriplean with a Mexican identification card

bearing Defendant’s name. Defendant informed Kriplean he was the only 

One80 painter named Rene on the crew, and Kriplean arrested Defendant. 

Victim did not recognize Defendant’s name or otherwise know him.

¶5 The State charged Defendant with one count of aggravated 

taking the identity of another, a class 3 felony, and two counts of forgery,

a class 4 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 

sections 13-2009 and -20022 respectively. Trial proceeded after Defendant 

waived his right to a jury, and the court found him guilty of the charged 

offenses. The court subsequently suspended imposition of sentence and

placed Defendant on one year of unsupervised probation. Defendant 

appealed, and we have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the 

Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12–120.21(A)(1), 13–4031, and –

4033(A)(1).

ANALYSIS

¶6 Defendant first contends insufficient evidence supports his 

convictions. Specifically, Defendant argues the State failed to introduce 

evidence that he completed the Employment Forms or that they were 

otherwise “associated” with him.

¶7 Our review of the sufficiency of evidence is limited to 

whether substantial evidence exists to support the verdicts. State v. Scott, 

177 Ariz. 131, 138, 865 P.2d 792, 799 (1993); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)

 

number. The A-4 form used the name “Rene Alonso ______,” the latter 

name being Victim’s last name.

2 In the absence of material revisions after the relevant date, we generally 

cite a statute’s current version. Although the legislature amended A.R.S. § 

13-2009 in 2014, those revisions do not affect section (A)(3) of the statute, 

which is the applicable provision in this case. See 2014 Ariz. Sess. Laws, 

ch. 159, § 2 (2nd Reg. Sess.).
STATE v. SORIANO-TORRES

Decision of the Court

4

(directing courts to enter judgment of acquittal “if there is no substantial 

evidence to warrant a conviction.”). Substantial evidence is “such proof 

that ’reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to 

support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” 

State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (quoting State v. 

Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 610 P.2d 51, 53 (1980)).

¶8 When addressing a sufficiency of evidence argument, “[w]e 

construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. 

Greene, 192 Ariz. 431, 436, ¶ 12, 967 P.2d 106, 111 (1998). Furthermore, in 

our review, we do not distinguish “between the probative value of direct 

and circumstantial evidence.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 560 n.1, 858 P.2d 

1152, 1163 n.1 (1993). The State does not have “to negate every 

conceivable hypothesis of innocence when guilt has been established by 

circumstantial evidence.” State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392, 404, 694 P.2d 222, 

234 (1985). And when determining one’s intent, absent an admission, the 

court relies on inferences “from all relevant . . . circumstances.” In re 

William G., 192 Ariz. 208, 213, 963 P.2d 287, 292 (App. 1997).

¶9 As pertinent here, “[a] person commits aggravated taking 

the identity of another person . . . if the person knowingly . . . uses any 

personal identifying information of . . . [a]nother person . . . with the intent 

to obtain employment.” A.R.S. § 13–2009 (A)(3). Regarding the crime of 

forgery, “[a] person commits forgery if, with intent to defraud, the person 

. . . [o]ffers or presents . . . a forged instrument or one that contains false 

information.” A.R.S. § 13–2002(A)(3). 

¶10 We reject Defendant’s argument. Neither crime requires 

proof that Defendant personally completed the Employment Forms. 

Rather, considering the charged offenses together, the State was required 

to prove Defendant, with the intent to defraud, knowingly used the false 

information (particularly Victim’s SSN) in the Employment Forms --

specifically the tax forms -- to gain employment with One80. Moreover,

Defendant’s benefit of employment with One80 that resulted from the 

false information in the tax forms supports the inference of his

involvement in the falsification of those documents. See State v. Rea, 145 

Ariz. 298, 299 n. 1, 701 P.2d 6, 7 n.1 (App. 1985).

¶11 Regarding the requisite mens rea, the record clearly 

establishes Defendant knowingly used Victim’s SSN and name with the 

intent to gain employment with One80. Based on Defendant’s Mexican 

citizenship, and absent any evidence he was otherwise authorized to work 
STATE v. SORIANO-TORRES

Decision of the Court

5

in the United States, Defendant could not obtain employment with One80

without using another person’s SSN.3 Further, regarding the forgery 

convictions, Defendant’s intent to defraud can be inferred because he 

impaired the governmental function of collecting taxes. See State v. 

Thompson, 194 Ariz. 295, 298, ¶¶ 15-16, 981 P.2d 595, 598 (App. 1999)

(holding evidence that the defendant’s forging of vehicle registrations 

showed intent to defraud because inaccurate records “impaired a 

government function”). 

¶12 Thus, under these circumstances, a jury could reasonably 

conclude Defendant intended to defraud the federal government by 

knowingly using Victim’s name and SSN to gain employment with One80. 

Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports Defendant’s convictions.

¶13 Next, Defendant asserts his right to confront witnesses as 

provided in the Sixth Amendment4 was infringed because the person who 

was responsible for ensuring the Employment Forms were correctly 

completed did not testify because he had been in “a horrible accident” 

resulting in brain damage. The employment forms for Defendant were 

completed in October 2010, and CB, who testified, did not become 

custodian of the employment records until August 2011. As Defendant 

concedes, we are limited to reviewing this issue for fundamental error. 

State v. Alvarez, 213 Ariz. 467, 469, ¶ 7, 143 P.3d 668, 670 (App. 2006). We 

conclude that no Confrontation Clause violation occurred and no error. 

¶14 Defendant’s confrontation rights as enshrined in the Sixth 

Amendment were not implicated at trial because the court did not admit 

any statements made by the person who was involved in October 2010 

with Defendant’s employment application process at One80. See State v. 

King, 213 Ariz. 632, 637, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 1274, 1279 (App. 2006) (“In 

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d 

177 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause 

prohibits the admission of testimonial evidence from a declarant who does 

 3 CB testified that One80, in accordance with federal law, did not 

knowingly hire employees who were unauthorized to work in the United 

States.

4 The Confrontation Clause states, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the 

accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses 

against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI.
STATE v. SORIANO-TORRES

Decision of the Court

6

not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant 

had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.”) (emphasis 

added). Because no out-of-court statement was admitted against 

Defendant, we reject Defendant’s argument.5 

¶15 Finally, we note an error in the sentencing minute entry

order. Specifically, the trial court ordered Defendant to “submit to DNA 

testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable 

fee for the cost of that testing in accordance with A.R.S. § 13–610.” Section 

13–610, however, does not authorize the trial court to order a convicted 

person to pay for the cost of that DNA testing. State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 

468, 472, ¶ 14, 307 P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013). We therefore modify the 

sentencing order by vacating that portion which imposed the obligation 

on Defendant to pay the cost of the DNA testing.

CONCLUSION

¶16 Defendant’s convictions and the imposition of probation are 

affirmed as modified. 

 5 To the extent Defendant is arguing that the Employment Forms are 

essentially testifying against him without any opportunity to crossexamine One80’s custodian of the records at the time of their creation, we 

note that Defendant did not object to the admission into evidence of the 

Employment Forms.