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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Appellee
,

v.

JESUS ARMANDO GARCIA-CORRALES, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0288

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012 -134163-001 The Ho norable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge

AFF IRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Eric K. Knobloch Counsel for Appellee

Ballecer & Segal, LLP, Phoenix By Natalee Segal Counsel for AppellantSTATE v. GARCIA-CORRALES Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

P O R T L E Y , Judge:

¶1 Jesus Armando Garcia-Corrales appeals his convictions for dangerous crimes against children. He argues it was fundamental error for the jury to hear evidence relating to a sentence enhancement during the guilt phase of trial, and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding of dangerous crimes against a child on two of the counts against him. Because we disagree with the premise of his argument, we affirm.

FACTS 1 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 M. lived in an apartment with her four children, husband (“Husband”), and two of his co -workers. Early one morning, she heard a loud noise, looked and saw people jumping over the wall, and told Hus band that someone was entering the house. H e qu ickly put on his pants, opened the bedroom door, and was hit by one of three intruders. A gun was put to his head. M., who was holding their three-year-old daughter, D., was told not to scream or make noise, as guns were pointed
at her.

¶3 M.’s fifteen -year-old son, who heard the noise and hid in his closet in his locked bedroom, called the police. He was found and taken dow nstairs, joining Husband, th e two co-workers, and M., who was still holdin g D. The intruders terrorized the residents by handcuffing and beating Husband, as well as beating M., who was trying to hold and protect her child. The intruders, knowing Husband bought, refurbished, and sold used cars, took phones, money, jewelry, car titles and car keys, and fled when the y heard a helicopter over the apartment.

¶4 An officer in the helicopter watched a person running from the direction of the apartment to a waiting vehicle. The car sped out of the

1 We view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. State v. Tamplin , 195 Ariz. 246, 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).STATE v. GARCIA-CORRALES Decision of the Court

3 complex, was pursued by police officers, and subsequently caught. Gar cia

Corrales, the driver, was arrested, along with Omar Camacho, one of the intruders. The adult victims recognized Garcia-Corrales; he had attend ed a birthday party at the apartment weeks before the home invasion.

¶5 Garcia-Corrales was indicted for burglary; six counts of kidn apping, one of which was a dangerous crime against children; six counts of aggravated assault, one of which was a dangerous crime against children; and unlawful flight. All the charges, except for the unlawful fl ight, were also charged as dangerous crimes because guns were involved. The jury found Garcia-Corrales guilty as charged. He was subsequently sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence, totaling nearly twenty-eight years. After failing to file a timely notice of appeal, Garcia-Corrales filed a successful petition for post-conviction relief requesting leave to file a delayed notice of appeal. He then filed this appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12– 120.21(A)(1), 13

– 4031, and

– 4033(A). 2

DISCUSSION

¶6 Garcia-Corrales argues the court committed fundamental error by allowing the jury to resolve the “dangerous crime against children” allegat ion, claiming that it is merely “a sentenc ing enhancement” and was required to be presented to “the jury only after the guilt phase of trial.” He contends that because the jury heard about the child’s age at the time of the home invasion, the information “likely inflamed and prejudiced the jury.” He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he was an accomplice in targeting a child under the age of fifteen.

I. “Dangerous Crime Against Children” Evidence

¶7 Garcia-Corrales first contends that the trial court committed fundamental error by allowing the jury to hear about the age of the three year old child-victim during the guilt phase of the trial. He specifically argues the evidence was inflammatory and prejudicial, and that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure ( “ Rule ” ) 19.1 was violated because it requires a finding of

guilt before addressing sentencing enhancements. We review questions involving the application of court rules de novo. Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc. , 218 Ariz. 541, 549, ¶ 22, 189 P.3d 1114, 1122 (App. 2008).

2 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes unless otherwise noted.STATE v. GARCIA-CORRALES Decision of the Court

4 ¶8 We reject his argument. Although Rule 19.1 details the order of proceedings in a criminal trial, including sentencing, the rule does not require that an element of an offense, such as a dangerous crime against children allegation or an allegation that the crime was dangerous because a gun or other weapon was used, be only proven subsequent to the determination of guilt on the underlying charges. And Garcia-Corrales has not cited to any statute or case law requiring such, and we have found none.

¶9 Moreover, two counts in the indictment alleged that thecrimes were dangerous crimes against children because one of the childvictims was under fifteen years of age. Specifically, count 7, the kidnapping charge, stated that Garcia-Corrales “kn owingly restrained [D

. ], under fifteen years of age, with the intent to inflict . . . physical injury . . . or to otherwise aid in the commission of a felony.” And count 13, the aggravated assault charge, contained similar language; namely that “using a firearm, a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, intentionally placed [D.], a
pers on under 15 years of age, in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury.” Because the allegation was an element of each offense, the State, in order to meet its burden of proof, was required to present evidence that Garcia-Corrales and his compatriots “focused on, directed against, aimed at, or target[ed] a victim under the ag e of fifteen.” State v. Williams
, 175 Ariz. 98, 103, 854 P.2d 131, 136 (1993).

¶10 Moreover, the child- victim’s age at the time of the crimes was relevant and probative of an element to two of the charged crimes. Ariz. R. Evid. 401. The jury was properly instructed and we presume they followed the instruction. State v. Reyes , 232 Ariz. 468, 471, ¶ 7, 307 P.3d 35, 38 (App. 2013). As a result, we find no error.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶11 We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de

novo , State v. Felix , 237 Ariz. 280, 289, ¶ 30, 349 P.3d 1117, 1126 (App. 2015) (citation omitted), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

sus taining the verdict, and reversing only if there is no substantial evidence
sup porting the conviction, State v. Fimbres , 222 Ariz. 293, 297, ¶ 4, 213 P.3d 1020, 1024 (App. 2009) (citation omitted). “ Substantial evidence is proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate . . . to support a conclusion of [the] defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Bearup , 221 Ariz. 163, 167, ¶ 16, 211 P.3d 684, 688 (2009) (citation omitted).STATE v. GARCIA-CORRALES Decision of the Court

5 ¶12 Garcia-Corrales wa s the driver of the get-away car and

c onvicted as an a ccomplice to the home invasion. An accomplice is a person

w ho with the “intent to promote or facilitate the commission” of the offense:

1. Solicits or commands another person to commit the offense;

or 2. Aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing an offense. 3. Provides means or opportunity to another person to commit the offense.

A.R.S. § 13 -301 . An accomplice may be held “criminally accountable for the conduct of another” if
, in the course of helping that person commit an offense, another offense occurs “ that is a natural and probable or reasonably foreseeable consequence of the offense for which the person was an accomplice. ” A.R.S. § 13-303 (A)(3).

¶13 Here, a month before the home invasion, Garcia- Corrales’s

s ister was invited to D.’s birthday party at the apartment, and she brought Garcia -Corrales and his children. He , as a result, knew M. had a three year

o ld living with her when he drove his compatriots to the apartment at two o’clock in the morning, and he knew, or should have known, that the three
y ear old would be with her parents. Consequently, by driving his three friends to the apartment to break in, terrorize the occupants, take items that did not belong to them, and then attempt to drive them from the scene, Garcia -Corrales is responsible for the crimes committed by the three hedrove to the apartment. And he is equally responsible for the dangerouscrimes-against-children counts because it was reasonably foreseeable that, in the commission of the burglary, D. would be present, restrained along with the others, and placed in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury.

¶14 Garcia-Corrales asserts that there is no evidence that he entered the home. However, he did not need to e nt er the residence to be held accountable as an accomplice. It was enough that h e drove his friends to the apartment and then tried to drive away after the commission of the crimes, albeit unsuccessfully. Garcia-Corrales was apprehended with a codefendant, who admitted to conducting the home invasion, after the police foun d the co-defendant with a handgun and the victims’ jewelry

. Because there was sufficient evidence that Garcia-Corrales was involved with his comrades, who committed the home invasion and related crimes, he was an accomplice for all the ir crimes. We therefore affirm the jury’s verdict s. See State v. Felix , 237 Ariz. at 290, ¶ 35, 349 P.3d at 1127 (App. 2015)STATE v. GARCIA-CORRALES Decision of the Court

6 (affirming jury finding of dangerous crime against children where defendant knew baby lived at house and was aware that by his indiscriminate shooting bullets into house at 5:00 a.m. , it was likely he would be directing his fire at the baby, who was occupying the house and likely to be home asleep).

CON CLUSION

¶15 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Garcia- Corrales’s convictions and sentences.