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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

EDGAR IVAN BUZANI, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0754

 1 CA-CR 15-0755

 (Consolidated)

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

 No. CR2013-428616-001

CR2008-144485-001

The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix

By Jeffrey L. Force

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BUZANI

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge James P. Beene joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), 

following Edgar Ivan Buzani's conviction of sexual assault, a Class 2 felony, 

and related revocation of probation. Buzani's counsel has searched the 

record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not 

frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State 

v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Buzani 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 Buzani's conviction and sentence and the related revocation of 

probation and sentencing.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Buzani and the victim were at a party.1 At some point during 

the night, the victim became intoxicated and fell asleep; the host of the 

party, accompanied by Buzani, carried her to an upstairs bedroom. Later 

that night, Buzani returned to the bedroom and engaged in sexual 

intercourse with the victim. The host and another witness entered the 

bedroom and found the victim on the bed, partially clothed, crying and 

bleeding from her face and ears. A few seconds later, other party-goers

reported they had just seen a man jump off the second-floor window into 

the backyard and run away. At trial, the defense did not deny that Buzani 

had engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim and had run away after 

leaping through the window, but argued the victim had consented to 

having sex with him. The victim testified she did not consent.

¶3 The jury convicted Buzani of one count of sexual assault, but 

acquitted him of aggravated assault and a second charge of sexual assault.

At sentencing, the court found Buzani had three historical prior felony 

 

1 On review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the jury's verdict and resolve all inferences against Buzani. State v. Fontes, 

195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).
STATE v. BUZANI

Decision of the Court

3

convictions and, at the time of the current offense, was on probation for one 

of those prior offenses. The court imposed an aggravated sentence of 18 

years of imprisonment and correctly calculated presentence incarceration 

credit to which Buzani was entitled. See Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") 

section 13-1406(B) (2017) (sentencing for sexual assault offense with two or 

more historical prior felony convictions).2 The court also found Buzani in

violation of his probation in the earlier case, revoked probation and 

imposed a concurrent one-year sentence.

¶4 We have jurisdiction of Buzani's timely appeals pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1) (2017), 13-4031 (2017) and -4033 (2017).

DISCUSSION

¶5 The record reflects Buzani 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. 

It did not conduct a voluntariness hearing; however, the record does not 

suggest a question about the voluntariness of Buzani's statements to police. 

See State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 419 (1977); State v. Finn, 111 Ariz. 271, 275 

(1974).

¶6 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence 

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

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

charges and gave the key instructions concerning burden of proof, 

presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt and the necessity of a 

unanimous verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict. The court 

received and considered a presentence report, addressed its contents 

during the sentencing hearing and imposed a legal sentence for the crime 

of which Buzani was convicted. Based on Buzani's sexual assault 

conviction, the court also did not err by revoking Buzani's probation and 

imposing sentence for the prior offense.

 

2 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute's current version.
STATE v. BUZANI

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

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

find none, and therefore affirm the conviction, the revocation of probation, 

and the sentences imposed. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300.

¶8 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations 

pertaining to Buzani's representation on appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Buzani 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, Buzani has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Buzani has 30 days 

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

for review.