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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

WILFREDO NOE GONZALEZ-MORALES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0141

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR20070638

The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate’s Office, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. GONZALES-MORALES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Wilfredo Noe 

Gonzalez-Morales has advised the court that, after searching the entire 

record, she has found no arguable question of law and asks this court to 

conduct an Anders review of the record. Gonzalez-Morales was given the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se, but has not done so. This 

court has reviewed the record and has found no reversible error.

Accordingly, the revocation of Gonzalez-Morales’ probation and his 

resulting prison sentence are affirmed. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 In August 2007, Gonzalez-Morales was sentenced to four 

months in prison followed by three years of probation after having pled 

guilty to aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating 

liquor, a Class 4 felony, committed in April 2007. In February 2009, the State

filed a petition to revoke Gonzalez-Morales’ probation, alleging he violated 

his conditions of probation by driving with a suspended license; refusing a

field sobriety test; refusing to provide a blood sample and consuming 

alcohol. Gonzalez-Morales entered into a written plea agreement in which 

he admitted to a probation violation and the parties agreed he would be 

reinstated on probation. The plea agreement stated that, if the court rejected 

the plea, either party could withdraw from the plea. Following a colloquy 

in open court with Gonzalez-Morales in March 2009, the court found his 

admission was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently and with a 

factual basis and, accordingly, the plea was accepted by the court and a 

disposition hearing scheduled for April 2009.

 

1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” 

State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 (1997) (citation omitted).
STATE v. GONZALES-MORALES

Decision of the Court

3

¶3 Gonzalez-Morales failed to appear for his disposition hearing, 

and the court issued a bench warrant. After Gonzalez-Morales was taken 

into custody more than six years later, the superior court rejected the March 

2009 plea and the State filed a supplemental petition to revoke probation. 

The State also offered Gonzalez-Morales a revised plea agreement that 

would have required him to serve a mitigated term of 2.25 years in prison.

The court, however, rejected the plea agreement and set the matter for an 

evidentiary hearing on the petition to revoke.

¶4 At a contested evidentiary hearing in January 2016, where 

Gonzalez-Morales elected to testify, the court found he violated probation 

by driving when he knew his license was suspended, based on admissions 

he made during his testimony at that hearing. At a subsequent disposition 

hearing, after considering information provided and hearing argument, the 

superior court revoked Gonzalez-Morales’ probation and sentenced him to 

1.5 years in prison, with 215 days presentence incarceration credit. This

court has jurisdiction over Gonzalez-Morales’ timely appeal 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 13-4033(A) (2016).2

DISCUSSION 

¶5 The record shows that Gonzales-Morales was represented by 

counsel at all relevant stages of the proceedings and counsel was present at 

all critical stages. The record provided contains substantial evidence 

supporting the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence. From the 

record, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the resulting sentence imposed was 

within statutory limits and the permissible range. 

CONCLUSION 

¶6 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief, and has 

searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. See 

Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). 

Accordingly, the revocation of Gonzalez-Morales’ probation and resulting 

sentence are affirmed. 

¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Gonzalez-Morales of the status of his appeal and of his future 

 

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
STATE v. GONZALES-MORALES

Decision of the Court

4

options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, 

counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona 

Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584-85 (1984). Gonzalez-Morales shall have 30 days from the date of this

decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration 

or petition for review.