NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

ANGEL JAMES MORENO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0177

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2011-121921-002

The Honorable Carolyn K. Passamonte, Judge Pro Tem

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Terry J. Adams

Counsel for Appellant

Angel James Moreno,

Appellant
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

D O W N I E, Judge:

¶1 Angel Moreno timely appeals his convictions for resisting 

arrest, theft of means of transportation, criminal damage, and threatening 

or intimidating in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 

13-2508(A)(1), -1814(A)(5), -1602(A)(1), and -1202(A)(1), respectively. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 

Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel has searched the record,

found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record 

for reversible error. See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339, 857 P.2d 388, 

391 (App. 1993). Moreno filed a supplemental brief in propria persona that 

we have considered. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶2 Officer Urbatsch was on patrol when he spotted a turquoise 

late-model Chevrolet Camaro fitting the description of a vehicle recently 

reported stolen. A person later identified as Jose Garcia emerged from a 

nearby backyard and approached the officer. Officer Urbatsch questioned 

Garcia about the Camaro. Moreno then emerged from the same backyard 

and joined the conversation. He explained that he was in the process of 

buying the Camaro and had the owner’s permission to test drive it to his 

home, where it was parked. 

¶3 Officer Urbatsch received confirmation the Camaro had been 

stolen. Upon hearing this news, Moreno and Garcia became belligerent, 

stopped cooperating, and began screaming obscenities. They fled to the 

fenced backyard. Officer Urbatsch followed, but Garcia ran at him with 

something in his hand, causing the officer to retreat and draw his firearm.

 1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

conviction[s].” State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552, 633 P.2d 355, 361 (1981). 
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Officer Magness arrived to assist. Officer Urbatsch moved to 

the front of the house and saw Moreno running “in a dead sprint.” He

gave chase. Moreno ignored commands to stop. Officer Urbatsch

ultimately caught Moreno, who resisted attempts to handcuff him. After 

Moreno was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, officers returned to 

Moreno’s house. Garcia, still in the backyard, was “spraying something” 

at officers and screaming profanities. It took five officers to subdue him.

While in the patrol vehicle, Garcia kicked the doors and screamed 

obscenities. Moreno then began screaming and “kicking out the doors” of 

the patrol car he was in. Officers attempted to restrain him. Moreno

claimed he was in the Mexican Mafia and stated he and Garcia would

“come to your house and kill you and your kids.” He repeated the threat 

“a few times.” Moreno later loosened his restraint and began kicking 

again. He “broke the rubber molding around the top of the car . . . and 

also bent the car door out to the point where it couldn’t be closed 

anymore.” 

¶5 Moreno was charged with resisting arrest, a class six felony, 

theft of means of transportation, a class three felony, criminal damage, a 

class one misdemeanor, and threatening or intimidating, a class one 

misdemeanor. A jury found Moreno guilty of all counts. The court 

imposed concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment, and Moreno 

timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have read and considered the briefs submitted by 

Moreno and his counsel and have reviewed the entire record. See Leon, 

104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find no reversible error. All of the 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Moreno was either present at or waived his presence 

for all critical phases of the proceedings. He was represented by counsel. 

The jury was properly impaneled and instructed. The jury instructions 

were consistent with the offenses charged. The record reflects no 

irregularity in the deliberation process.

¶7 Moreno contends he was “never able to testify.” The record, 

though, establishes that he was offered a full opportunity to present

witnesses and evidence at trial, but declined to do so. 

¶8 Construing Moreno’s remaining arguments liberally, he 

appears to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his 
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

4

convictions. Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence for 

each conviction. See Tison, 129 Ariz. at 552, 633 P.2d at 361 (in reviewing 

for sufficiency of evidence, “[t]he test to be applied is whether there is 

substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict”). “Substantial evidence 

is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a 

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

Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 290, 908 P.2d 1062, 1075 (1996). We will reverse a 

conviction “only if there is a complete absence of probative facts to 

support [the jury’s] conclusion.” State v. Carlisle, 198 Ariz. 203, 206, ¶ 11, 8 

P.3d 391, 394 (App. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).

¶9 A person commits theft of means of transportation if, 

without lawful authority, he knowingly “[c]ontrols another person’s 

means of transportation knowing or having reason to know that the 

property is stolen.” A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5). The Camaro’s owners did not 

give Moreno or Garcia permission to drive the car. The Camaro had a 

cracked steering column and could only be operated with a tool like a 

screwdriver. Moreno was in possession of the Camaro within 

approximately two hours of it being reported stolen. See State v. Rood, 11 

Ariz. App. 102, 103, 462 P.2d 399, 400 (1969) (“Unexplained possession of 

recently stolen goods can generate an inference of the requisite felonious 

intent.”). Once officers verified that the Camaro was stolen, Moreno 

stopped cooperating and attempted to flee. See State v. Hunter, 136 Ariz. 

45, 48-49, 664 P.2d 195, 198-99 (1983) (jury can consider flight as 

consciousness of guilt).

¶10 Resisting arrest occurs when a person intentionally prevents 

or attempts “to prevent a person reasonably known to him to be a peace 

officer, acting under color of such peace officer’s official authority, from 

effecting an arrest by[] . . . [u]sing or threatening to use physical force 

against the peace officer.” A.R.S. § 13-2508(A)(1). Officers Urbatsch and 

Magness wore police uniforms, and Officer Urbatsch spoke to Moreno

from inside a patrol vehicle. As Officer Urbatsch was chasing Moreno, he 

shouted, “stop police.” Moreno continued to resist even after officers 

caught up with him and disregarded commands to “stop resisting.”

¶11 There was likewise substantial evidence Moreno committed 

criminal damage by recklessly defacing or damaging property of the 

Phoenix Police Department. See A.R.S. § 13-1602(A)(1). Officers observed 

Moreno kicking the door of the patrol vehicle. He kicked it to such an 

extent that the door bowed, the rubber lining broke off, and the vehicle 

had to be taken out of service because it could no longer secure 

passengers. 
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

5

¶12 Finally, the record supports Moreno’s conviction for 

threatening or intimidating, an offense that requires evidence of a threat, 

by words or conduct, to cause physical injury to another person. See 

A.R.S. § 13-1202(A)(1). After reading their nametags aloud, Moreno told 

Sergeant Britt, Officer McDavid, and Officer Magness that he was a 

member of the Mexican Mafia and that he would kill them and their 

children. The officers testified that because the Mexican Mafia is a 

dangerous criminal street gang, they took the threat seriously. 

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm Moreno’s convictions and sentences. Counsel’s 

obligations pertaining to Moreno’s representation in this appeal have 

ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Moreno of the status 

of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an 

issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by 

petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 

156-57 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Moreno shall have 30 days 

from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria 

persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.