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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CARLOS ALEJANDRO MIRAMONTES, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0665 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-123835-001 

The Honorable John Christian 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 Jesse Finn Turner

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 12-4-2018
STATE v. MIRAMONTES

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Carlos A. Miramontes timely filed this appeal in accordance 

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

(1969), following his conviction of resisting arrest, a class 6 felony. 

Miramontes's counsel has searched the record and found no arguable 

question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Miramontes 

was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. 

Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. 

After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Miramontes's convictions and 

sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On May 19, 2016, two Phoenix police officers responded to a 

call about a car with a flat tire in the parking lot of a strip mall. The officers 

found Miramontes, the sole occupant, slumped over in the car and believed 

he was intoxicated. Because the car was running, they boxed it in with their 

patrol cruisers before trying to rouse the sleeping Miramontes. The officers 

pulled the keys from the ignition and attempted to wake Miramontes by 

tapping him and giving him commands in both English and Spanish. They 

also identified themselves as Phoenix police officers. Miramontes was “in 

and out,” mumbling random, incoherent words before falling back asleep.

¶3 Miramontes awoke and slapped one of the officers in the 

chest. The officers then began pulling on Miramontes and asking him to 

leave the car. Instead, Miramontes braced his leg on the car’s center pillar 

and began flailing his other leg at the officers, kicking one in the leg. After 

officers pulled him from the car, Miramontes grabbed at the tactical vest 

and belt of one of the officers. The officers and Miramontes then scuffled, 

with officers striking Miramontes several times to subdue and handcuff 

him.
STATE v. MIRAMONTES

Decision of the Court

3 

¶4 On May 23, 2016, the State charged Miramontes via direct 

complaint with one count of aggravated assault and one count of resisting 

arrest. Miramontes proceeded to trial on August 30 and 31, and September 

5, 2016. At trial, the court heard from one of the arresting officers and the 

State entered video from his body camera into evidence. Miramontes then 

moved for a judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 20. The court ruled that the evidence was substantial because the 

officers had “announced themselves loudly and repeatedly” and that jurors 

could infer Miramontes’s mental state from his continued struggle with 

officers after he awoke. 

¶5 The jury found Miramontes guilty of resisting arrest, but 

hung on the aggravated assault charge. The State and Miramontes then 

agreed to a deal: the State moved to dismiss the assault charge with 

prejudice after Miramontes admitted to his prior felonies. The court granted 

the motion and subsequently sentenced Miramontes to 3.75 years’ 

imprisonment. Miramontes timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reflects Miramontes received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and was 

present at all critical stages. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings.

¶7 The court did not conduct a voluntariness hearing; however, 

Miramontes did not request a voluntariness hearing and accordingly 

waived his right to challenge the voluntariness of his statements to police. 

State v. Bush, 244 Ariz. 575, 589–90, ¶¶ 59–61 (2018) (noting that courts are 

never required to sua sponte hold voluntariness hearings and disavowing 

previous contradictory Arizona cases).

¶8 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence 

sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly comprised of 

eight members. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of 

the charges, the State's burden of proof, and the necessity of a unanimous 

verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which it affirmed in open 

court. The court received and considered a presentence report, addressed 

its contents during the sentencing hearing, and imposed legal sentences for 

the crimes of which Miramontes was convicted.
STATE v. MIRAMONTES

Decision of the Court

4 

CONCLUSION

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

find none, and therefore affirm the convictions and resulting sentences. See

Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. 

¶10 Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Miramontes's 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than 

inform Miramontes of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 

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). On the court's own motion, Miramontes has 30 

days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per

motion for reconsideration. Miramontes has 30 days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.