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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RONALD GREG CORTEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0177

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-010207-001

The Honorable Warren J. Granville, 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. CORTEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding 

Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

K E S S L E R, Judge:

¶1 Ronald Greg Cortez filed this appeal in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 

P.2d 878 (1969), following his conviction of first degree murder, a class one 

dangerous felony. Finding no arguable issues to raise, Cortez’s counsel 

requested that this Court search the record for fundamental error. Cortez 

was given the opportunity to but did not file a pro per supplemental brief. 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm Cortez’s conviction and sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 1996, S.M.’s body was found off of Lower Buckeye Road. 

At the scene, Phoenix police officers collected two cigarette butts, and took 

photographs of several shoe impressions. One set of shoe impressions 

matched the footwear of S.M. Another set matched the impressions left by 

a pair of Nike Air Triax shoes. Detective R.R., a homicide detective at the 

Phoenix Police Department, interviewed several people during his 

investigation, and learned of a rumor that S.M. had been involved in 

robbing a drug dealer named Dan Bittle. R.D.B. told Detective R.R. about 

drugs in the home of Cortez, a suspected associate of Bittle.

¶3 Upon obtaining a search warrant, Police searched Cortez’s 

house and found drugs and guns, which Cortez claimed to be his own. 

Additionally, Detective R.R. recovered a pair of Nike Air Max Triax shoes 

in Cortez’s bedroom. After advising Cortez of his Miranda1 rights, Detective 

R.R. questioned him about the murder of S.M. and several of the 

individuals Detective R.R. believed to be involved in her murder. At the 

time, Cortez claimed he knew nothing about S.M.’s murder and had been 

shocked when S.M.’s friend had told him about it. 

¶4 The investigation did not lead to any charges being filed and 

in 1997, the case was categorized as inactive. In February of 2009, a police 

 

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
STATE v. CORTEZ

Decision of the Court

3

detective reviewed the case and submitted the cigarette butts found at the 

scene for DNA analysis.2 The DNA analysis of one of the cigarette butts 

matched S.M. and the other matched Cortez’s record in the DNA database. 

¶5 Given this match, Detective C.S., a cold case investigator with 

the Phoenix Police Department, interviewed Cortez. After being advised 

of his Miranda rights, Cortez stated that although he had been told what 

had happened to S.M., he was not present during the murder. However, 

when confronted with the DNA evidence that placed him at the scene, 

Cortez stated he had actually been kidnapped at gunpoint along with S.M. 

According to Cortez, Martin Rivera and Jesse Aguilar forced Cortez and 

S.M. into a vehicle and drove them to the crime scene where Rivera and 

Aguilar directed Cortez and S.M. to get out and smoke a cigarette. Cortez 

told Detective C.S. that when he and S.M. were instructed to return to the 

vehicle, Rivera grabbed Cortez and threw him up against the truck while 

Aguilar shot S.M. several times. Cortez claimed he never told anyone about 

the events because he feared for his life. 

¶6 Cortez was charged with first degree murder and pled not 

guilty. At trial, the State presented two witnesses, R.D.B. and B.P., who 

testified regarding the events leading up to the murder of S.M. According 

to these witnesses, several people were searching for S.M. because they 

believed she was responsible for robbing a drug dealer. Those searching 

for S.M. included Rivera, Aguilar, Bittle, and Cortez, who were involved in 

a small drug operation that transported and sold methamphetamines and 

marijuana. According to the testimony at trial, on the day of her murder, 

S.M. showed up at B.P.’s trailer, where R.D.B. was also present, that S.M. 

planned to make a deal with Rivera to repay him, and that S.M. believed 

some members of the Aryan Brotherhood would supply her with enough 

drugs to do that.

¶7 At some point, Cortez was summoned to the trailer to hear 

S.M.’s proposal. Rivera, Aguilar, and Bittle also arrived at the trailer, but 

Bittle was forced to leave. S.M.’s plan was explained to Rivera, and shortly 

thereafter Rivera and Aguilar left the trailer. Thereafter Cortez supplied 

S.M., R.D.B., and B.P. with methamphetamine. After Rivera and Aguilar

returned, Cortez and S.M. willingly left with them.3 S.M. was murdered 

 

2 In 1996, DNA analysis was not available to police.

3 Although the witnesses’ testimony about how S.M. left the trailer conflicts, 

both R.D.B. and B.P. testified that the last time they saw S.M. was when she 

left the trailer and got into a truck with Rivera, Aguilar, and Cortez, who 

appeared to go willingly. 
STATE v. CORTEZ

Decision of the Court

4

later that night. Both R.D.B. and B.P. testified that the next time each of 

them spoke to Cortez, Cortez blamed S.M.’s murder on the Aryan 

Brotherhood. 

¶8 The jury convicted Cortez of first degree murder. The court 

sentenced Cortez to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 25 

years, and awarded Cortez 447 days of presentence incarceration credit. 

¶9 Cortez filed a timely appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona 

Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), 

and -4033(A)(1) (2010).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶10 In an Anders appeal, this Court must review the entire record 

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

391 (App. 1993). Fundamental error is “error going to the foundation of the 

case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and 

error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have 

received a fair trial.” State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 

601, 607 (2005) (quoting State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90, 688 P.2d 980, 982 

(1984)). To obtain a reversal, the defendant must also demonstrate that the 

error caused prejudice. Id. at ¶ 20. 

DISCUSSION

¶11 After careful review of the record, we find no grounds for 

reversal of Cortez’s conviction or sentence. The record reflects Cortez had 

a fair trial and all proceedings were conducted in accordance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Cortez was present and represented 

by counsel at all critical stages of trial except when his presence was waived, 

was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing, and the sentence 

imposed was within the range for Cortez’s offense.

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶12 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[w]e 

construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. Greene, 

192 Ariz. 431, 436, ¶ 12, 967 P.2d 106, 111 (1998). “Reversible error based 

on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete 

absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” State v. Soto-Fong, 187 

Ariz. 186, 200, 928 P.2d 610, 624 (1996) (quoting State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 
STATE v. CORTEZ

Decision of the Court

5

424-25, 555 P.2d 1117, 1118-19 (1976)). Given the evidence presented at trial, 

a reasonable fact-finder could have concluded either that Cortez murdered 

S.M. or intentionally aided those who did. 

A. First Degree Murder

¶13 “A person commits first degree murder if . . . [i]ntending or 

knowing that the person’s conduct will cause death, the person causes the 

death of another person . . . with premeditation . . . .” A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(1) 

(2010).4 DNA evidence, shoe print evidence, and Cortez’s own admission 

place Cortez at the scene of S.M.’s murder. According to the testimony at 

trial, Cortez’s DNA matched the cigarette butt found at the scene and a pair 

of shoes matching the impression left at the scene were found in his home. 

Moreover, the jury heard the recording of Detective C.S.’s interview of 

Cortez wherein he first stated that he was not present at the scene but then, 

after being confronted with the DNA evidence placing him there, claimed 

Rivera and Aguilar kidnapped him and S.M. 

¶14 Further, the record shows that Cortez actively participated in

the events leading up to S.M.’s death including that: (1) Cortez, as a member 

of the drug operation, was one of the people looking for S.M. in connection 

with her rumored involvement in the robbery of a drug dealer, (2) Cortez 

was summoned to B.P.’s trailer on the day of S.M.’s murder, along with 

Rivera and Aguilar, (3) Cortez heard S.M.’s plan to pay Rivera back, (4) after 

Rivera and Aguilar left, Cortez supplied S.M., R.D.B., and B.P. with 

methamphetamine, and (5) upon their return, Cortez willingly left with 

Rivera, Aguilar, and S.M. The State established premeditation with such 

evidence, because such action by Cortez demonstrates that he “acted with 

either the intent or knowledge that he [or his associates] would kill [S.M.] 

and that such intent or knowledge preceded the killing by a length of time 

permitting reflection.” State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 134, ¶ 66, 140 P.3d 899, 

917 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also A.R.S. § 

13-1105(A)(1).

B. Accomplice Liability

¶15 Further, even if Cortez did not pull the trigger of the gun 

which killed S.M., there was sufficient evidence that he was liable for first 

degree murder as an accomplice. Cortez “is criminally accountable for the 

conduct of another if . . . [a]cting with the culpable mental state sufficient 

 

4 We cite to the current versions of statutes when no changes material to 

this decision have since occurred.
STATE v. CORTEZ

Decision of the Court

6

for the commission of the offense, such person causes another person . . . to 

engage in such conduct.“ A.R.S. § 13-303(A)(2) (2010). “If causing a 

particular result is an element of an offense, a person who acts with the kind 

of culpability with respect to the result that is sufficient for the commission 

of the offense is guilty of that offense if . . . [t]he person aids, counsels, agrees 

to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or engaging in the 

conduct causing such result.” A.R.S. § 13-303(B)(2). Given that the record 

reflects Cortez was present at the scene when S.M. was murdered and that 

Cortez actively participated in the events leading up to S.M.’s death, the 

evidence was sufficient for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Cortez 

intentionally acted with premeditation in aiding those who murdered S.M.5

¶16 Therefore, in comparing the evidence in the record to the 

elements listed in A.R.S. §§ 13-1105(A)(1) and 13-303(B)(2), we find there 

was sufficient evidence to support Cortez’s conviction for first degree 

murder.

II. Presentence Incarceration Credit

¶17 Presentence incarceration credit is given for time spent in 

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

454, 850 P.2d 690, 692 (App. 1993), and ending on the day before sentencing,

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

the presentencing report indicated that Cortez had served 446 days of 

presentence incarceration. At sentencing, the trial court gave Cortez credit 

for 447 days. By our calculation, Cortez was incarcerated for 447 days prior 

to sentencing, and thus, was awarded the appropriate credit. 

CONCLUSION

¶18 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Cortez’s conviction and 

sentence. Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Cortez of the status of his appeal and his future appellate options. Defense 

 

5 Although Cortez claimed he did not shoot S.M. and that he did not report 

the murder to the police because he feared for his life, this Court has 

declined “to recognize duress as a defense to accomplice liability for 

murder.” Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 134, ¶ 69, 140 P.3d at 917; see also A.R.S. § 13-

412(C) (2010) (“The defense provided by subsection A is unavailable for 

offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury.”). Further, none of 

the evidence recovered at the scene, nor any of the testimony from 

witnesses, suggests that Cortez was an unwilling participant in the death of 

S.M.
STATE v. CORTEZ

Decision of the Court

7

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, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 

(1984). Upon the Court’s own motion, Cortez shall have thirty days from 

the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion 

for reconsideration or petition for review.