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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTIAN MUDONDI HAGUMA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0349 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2020-122219-001

The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Thomas K. Baird

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 4-20-2023
STATE v. HAGUMA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Christian Haguma filed 

a brief advising this court that, after searching the entire record, he was 

unable to discover any arguable question of law and requesting that this 

court conduct an Anders review of the record. Haguma was given the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro per but did not do so. After 

reviewing the record, we affirm Haguma’s convictions and sentence. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On June 8, 2020, the State charged Haguma with sexual abuse, 

a class five felony, and assault, a class three misdemeanor. The State further 

alleged that the assault was sexually motivated. For sentencing purposes, 

the State alleged that Haguma had one historical prior felony conviction 

and at least one other non-historical prior felony conviction.

¶3 The State presented the following evidence at Haguma’s 

three-day trial: On June 3, 2020, the victim entered a gas station in Mesa, 

Arizona. Haguma approached the victim and offered to buy her drinks and 

gas. After declining Haguma’s offer at least twice, the victim eventually 

allowed Haguma to purchase her drinks and gas. Haguma then asked the 

victim for a ride. The victim refused, and Haguma began “flirting” with 

her. At one point during Haguma’s advances, he touched the victim’s

vagina over her clothes while making a remark about how he was “better 

than” the victim’s boyfriend. When the victim turned to leave the gas 

station, Haguma touched her buttocks several times. 

¶4 After returning to her car, the victim called the police. 

Officers arrived shortly thereafter and arrested Haguma. Officers reviewed

and collected the gas station’s security camera footage, which showed 

Haguma touching the victim.

¶5 The jury found Haguma guilty as charged of one count of 

sexual abuse and one count of sexually-motivated misdemeanor assault.
STATE v. HAGUMA

Decision of the Court

3

After finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Haguma

had one historical prior felony conviction, the trial court sentenced Haguma

to a slightly mitigated term of 1.5 years’ imprisonment for the sexual abuse 

conviction, followed by 1 year of probation for the assault, and credited him 

for 102 days of presentence incarceration. 

¶6 Haguma timely filed a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction 

under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We have searched the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (1999). Haguma was 

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

present at all critical stages. All proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Haguma’s constitutional 

and statutory rights. The record reflects substantial evidence to support the 

verdict, as summarized above. The superior court permitted Haguma to 

speak at sentencing and imposed a sentence within the statutory limits, 

with proper credit given for presentence incarceration. 

CONCLUSION

¶8 For all the reasons stated above, we affirm Haguma’s 

convictions and sentences. Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is 

instructed to inform Haguma of the status of his appeal and of his future 

options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, 

counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme 

Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 

(1984). Haguma will have thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition 

for review.