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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DOVERCINER RAMIREZ-VAZQUEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0553 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-126488-001

The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Stephen M. Johnson, Inc., Phoenix

By Stephen M. Johnson

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 4-13-2023
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Doverciner Ramirez-Vasquez appeals his convictions for 

sexual abuse, molestation of a child, kidnapping, and sexual conduct with 

a minor. Ramirez-Vasquez’s counsel has advised us that in accordance 

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

(1969), counsel has diligently searched the record and found no arguable 

question of law that was not frivolous. Counsel asks this court to search the 

record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 

1999). Ramirez-Vasquez declined the opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief pro se. After reviewing the record, we affirm Ramirez-Vasquez’s 

convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2018, Ramirez-Vasquez’s 14-year-old biological niece told 

her parents that Ramirez-Vasquez had sexually abused her a few months 

prior. Later that day, two of Ramirez-Vasquez’s biological daughters

disclosed that he had also sexually abused them for a period of years when 

they were around the age of 12.

¶3 Ramirez-Vasquez was arrested the following afternoon. A 

forensic nurse examined the children and discovered that RamirezVasquez’s 12-year-old daughter was pregnant. The child gave birth to a 

stillborn baby. The State presented DNA evidence that Ramirez-Vasquez 

was the baby’s father.

¶4 The State indicted Ramirez-Vasquez on twenty-six counts: 

eight counts of sexual abuse, class three felonies and dangerous crimes

against children; four counts of molestation of a child, class two felonies 

and dangerous crimes against children; one count of kidnapping, a class 

two felony and a dangerous crime against children; eleven counts of sexual 

conduct with a minor, class two felonies and dangerous crimes against 

children; one count of attempted molestation of a child, a class three felony 

and dangerous crime against children; and one count of attempt to commit 
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

sexual conduct with a minor, a class three felony and dangerous crime 

against children. Before trial, the State dismissed three counts of 

molestation and one count of sexual abuse.

¶5 The case was tried over seven days in August 2021. The court 

empaneled twelve jurors, with three alternates. One juror and one alternate 

were released during trial.

¶6 At the pretrial conference held on the first day of trial, 

Ramirez-Vasquez requested new counsel and refused to assist his attorney. 

His court-appointed counsel moved to withdraw. The court denied the 

motion. Ramirez-Vasquez then addressed the court, claiming that his 

family had hired counsel, naming an attorney. The court noted the lack of 

any notice of appearance by the purported new counsel and denied the 

motion again.

¶7 The court then asked Ramirez-Vasquez whether he wanted to 

be present for trial. He refused to answer the question, and so the court 

found that he wanted to be present. The court then inquired as to whether 

he wanted to be present in street clothes or in a Sheriff’s Department orange 

jumpsuit. Ramirez-Vasquez declined to answer. Between the morning and 

afternoon sessions of court, Ramirez-Vasquez conducted himself in such a 

manner that the court found he waived his appearance, and his counsel did 

not object to this finding. The court ordered Ramirez-Vasquez to be 

transported to court each day so that he could choose to participate in his 

trial if he wanted to. Ramirez-Vasquez subsequently waived his own 

appearance for all or part of each day of trial through his behavior in court, 

interjecting in open court despite being instructed not to, and claiming

illness, which the court did not find credible. 

¶8 On the seventh day of trial, the State rested and dismissed 

four counts of sexual conduct with a minor and two counts of sexual abuse. 

The court inquired whether Ramirez-Vasquez wanted to testify. The court 

warned him that he would not be permitted to make a speech to the jury 

detailing his grievances, and that his counsel and the State would both have 

an opportunity to question him. The court then asked whether RamirezVasquez understood these procedural constraints. Rather than reply 

directly, Ramirez-Vasquez asked to speak, and said he would comply after 

the court heard what he said. After Ramirez-Vasquez spoke, raising his 

motion for change of counsel again, the court denied the motion and asked 

whether he wished to testify. Ramirez-Vasquez stated he would not testify 

unless his motion for new counsel was granted, and the court found that he 

was choosing not to testify. The defense rested. 
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 The jury found Ramirez-Vasquez guilty on all remaining 

counts: five counts of sexual abuse, two counts of molestation of a child, six 

counts of sexual conduct with a minor, one count of kidnapping, one count 

of attempted molestation, and one count of attempted sexual conduct. The 

court sentenced him to the presumptive term on all counts: 

Count Charge Statute Sentence

1 Sexual Abuse

(Minor under 

15)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1404; 13-705(H)

5 years

3 Kidnapping

(Minor under 

15)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1304; 13-705(F)

17 years

7 Sexual Abuse

(Minor under 

15)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1404; 13-705(H) 

5 years

8 Sexual Conduct

(Minor 13 or 14 

years)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1405; 13-705(E)

20 years

9 Sexual Abuse

(Minor under 

15)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1404; 13-705(H) 

5 years

10 Attempted 

Molestation of 

Child

A.R.S. § 13-

1410(A); 13-

705(M), (R)

10 years

11 Sexual Abuse

(Minor under 

15)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1404; 13-705(H) 

5 years

12 Sexual Conduct

(Minor 12 years)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1405; 13-705(C)

Natural Life 

Imprisonment

13 Sexual Abuse

(Minor under 

15)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1404; 13-705(H)

5 years
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

5

15 Sexual Conduct 

(Minor 12 years)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1405; 13-705(C)

Natural Life 

Imprisonment

16 Sexual Conduct 

(Minor 12 years)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1405; 13-705(C)

Natural Life 

Imprisonment

17 Sexual Conduct 

(Minor 12 years)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1405; 13-705(C)

Natural Life 

Imprisonment

23 Sexual Conduct 

(Minor younger 

than 12)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1405; 13-705(C)

Natural Life 

Imprisonment

24 Molestation of a 

Child

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1410; 13-705(F)

17 years

25 Attempted 

Sexual Conduct

(Minor under 

12)

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1405; 13-705(M), 

(R)

10 years

26 Molestation of a 

Child

A.R.S. §§ 13-

1410; 13-705(F)

17 years

¶10 The court ordered all counts to run consecutive for a total of 

116 years and five natural life sentences. The court awarded him 1,284 days 

of presentence incarceration credit. 

¶11 Ramirez-Vasquez filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

¶12 We have reviewed and considered counsel’s brief and 

searched the record for reversible error. See Clark, 196 Ariz. at, 537, ¶ 30 

(providing guidelines for briefs when counsel has determined no arguable 

issues to appeal). We have found no reversible error. The record contains 

sufficient evidence from which the jury could determine, beyond a 

reasonable doubt, that Ramirez-Vasquez was guilty of the aforementioned 

crimes. The record reflects he was represented by counsel at all stages of 

the proceedings and counsel was present at all critical stages. All 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure and the sentences imposed were within the statutory 

limit.
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶13 For these reasons, we affirm Ramirez-Vasquez’s convictions 

and sentences. Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed 

to inform Ramirez-Vasquez of the status of his appeal and his future 

options. Defense 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 

(1984). Ramirez-Vasquez shall have thirty days from the date of this 

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

or petition for review.