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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RAUL RENATO VERDUGO-MANRIQUEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0518

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-129827001

The Honorable Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Terry Reid

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. VERDUGO-MANRIQUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 

(1969). Counsel for Raul Renato Verdugo-Manriquez (defendant) has 

advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to 

discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting that 

this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been 

afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but 

he has not done so. Because the record does not reveal any fundamental 

error, we affirm defendant’s convictions, but modify his sentences to reflect 

an increase of one day to his presentence incarceration credit.

¶2 Over the course of a week in June 2011, the fourteen-year-old 

victim was subjected to several unwanted sexual encounters with 

defendant. Defendant lived with the victim and the victim’s family in an 

apartment. The first incident occurred at night, when the victim woke to the 

defendant’s penis rubbing against him. As the victim tried to get up from

the floor, defendant put his penis in the victim’s mouth. Later that week, 

the victim was cooking noodles in the kitchen and defendant jumped on 

him, spilling noodles on the victim. Defendant then tried to remove the 

victim’s pants in the kitchen but was unsuccessful. Later that night, the 

victim awoke while having his pants pulled down and his anus penetrated 

by defendant’s penis. In the final incident on a later day, defendant, 

similarly, pulled the victim’s pants down, and penetrated victim’s anus 

with his penis. Defendant admitted to police that he had put his penis in 

the victim’s anus and mouth.

¶3 The state charged defendant with one count of molestation of 

a child, a class 2 felony, one count of attempt to commit sexual conduct with 

a minor, a class 2 felony, one count of aggravated assault, a class 6 felony, 

and two counts of sexual conduct with a minor, a class 2 felony. After a jury 

trial, defendant was convicted as charged. The jury found that the count of 

attempt to commit sexual conduct with a minor and both counts of sexual 

conduct of a minor occurred while the victim was under fifteen years of age 
STATE v. VERDUGO-MANRIQUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

and the defendant was over eighteen years of age. The trial court sentenced 

defendant to a slightly mitigated term of fourteen years imprisonment on 

each of counts one and five, his sentence was suspended in counts two and 

four, and he received a seventeen year term for count three. The three 

prison terms are to be served concurrently. The trial court found 757 days 

of presentence incarceration credit.

¶4 Presentence incarceration credit is given for time spent in 

custody beginning the day of booking, State v. Carnegie, 174 Ariz. 452, 454, 

850 P.2d 690, 692 (App. 1993), and ending the day before sentencing, State 

v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 246, 735 P.2d 854, 856 (App. 1987). Defendant 

served 758 days in custody prior to sentencing, yet he only received 757 

days of credit. Therefore, we modify defendant’s sentence to reflect one 

additional day of presentence incarceration credit. 

¶5 We have read and considered defendant's Anders brief, and 

we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Other than the presentence incarceration credit

calculation, we find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in 

compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence 

imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 

Ariz. 582, 584–85, 684 P.2d 154, 156–57 (1984), defendant's counsel's 

obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the 

date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria 

persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶6 We affirm the convictions and the sentences as modified.