NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JAIME CHAVEZ-MOLINA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0607

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-157027-001 

The Honorable Carolyn K. Passamonte, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Cory Engle

Counsel for Appellant

Jaime Chavez-Molina

Appellant
STATE v. CHAVEZ-MOLINA

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 Kent E. Cattani joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), following a prior 

appeal where defendant Jaime Chavez-Molina’s convictions were affirmed, 

most of his sentences were affirmed but two sentences were vacated and 

remanded for resentencing. Counsel for defendant has advised the court 

that, after searching the entire record, no arguable question of law has been 

located, and asks this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. 

Chavez-Molina was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro 

se, and has done so. This court has reviewed the entire record and finds no 

reversible error. Accordingly, this court affirms. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Chavez-Molina’s convictions stem from an incident in 

October 2010 where he “forcibly removed his pregnant girlfriend from a 

bar and later confronted a man who his girlfriend had asked to call the 

police.” State v. Chavez-Molina, 1 CA-CR 11-0848, 2012 WL 5269741, at * 1 ¶ 

1 (Ariz. App. Oct. 25, 2012) (mem. dec.). Chavez-Molina was charged with 

and, following a jury trial, convicted of kidnapping, a Class 2 dangerous 

felony and domestic violence offense; aggravated assault, a Class 3

dangerous felony and domestic violence offense; two other felonies and 

two other misdemeanors. Chavez-Molina was sentenced to concurrent 

prison sentences and jail terms, the longest of which were eight years for 

the kidnapping conviction and ten years for the aggravated assault 

(dangerous and domestic violence) conviction, and he was given 

appropriate presentence incarceration credit.

 

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, 951 P.2d 454, 463-464 (1997) (citation 

omitted).
STATE v. CHAVEZ-MOLINA

Decision of the Court

3

¶3 On Chavez-Molina’s original appeal, this court affirmed his 

convictions, affirmed most of his sentences but vacated the sentences for 

kidnapping and aggravated assault (dangerous and domestic violence). See 

Chavez-Molina, 1 CA-CR 11-0848, at *7 ¶ 24. On remand, the superior court 

resentenced Chavez-Molina to terms of ten years in prison for the 

kidnapping conviction and eight years in prison for the aggravated assault 

(dangerous and domestic offense) conviction, with appropriate presentence 

incarceration credit and to run concurrently with each other and all other 

prison sentences and jail terms in this matter. From Chavez-Molina’s timely 

appeal from his resentencing, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 

Arizona Revised Statues (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -

4033(A)(1) (2014).2

DISCUSSION

¶4 Counsel for Chavez-Molina has advised this court that after a 

diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law. In his 

supplemental pro se brief, Chavez-Molina argues he was not provided 

effective assistance of counsel at trial and attempts to press various trial 

issues. This court lacks jurisdiction to address ineffective assistance of 

counsel claims, which must be brought in a petition for post-conviction 

relief. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1; State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3 ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 

525, 527 (2002). The trial issues Chavez-Molina attempts to press were either 

raised and rejected in the prior appeal, or could have been raised in the

prior appeal and, accordingly, are barred. See State v. White, 194 Ariz. 344, 

354 ¶ 43, 982 P.2d 819, 829 (1999) (stating if a “party could have raised an 

issue in a prior appeal but did not, a court later hearing the same case need 

not consider the matter”) (quoting United States v. Nagra, 147 F.3d 875 (9th 

Cir. 1998)). Similarly, in resentencing Chavez-Molina, the superior court

properly recognized that it had the discretion to add up to two years in 

prison for each of those counts pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-709.04 (2010) and, in 

exercising its discretion, did add two years to those two sentences and the 

sentences imposed were within statutory limits. 

¶5 The record shows that Chavez-Molina was represented by 

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

All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

 

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes cited refer to the 

current version unless otherwise indicated. 

 
STATE v. CHAVEZ-MOLINA

Decision of the Court

4

Rules of Criminal Procedure and the sentences imposed were within 

statutory limits and permissible ranges.

CONCLUSION

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

Chavez-Molina’s supplemental pro se brief and has searched the record 

provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 

P.2d at 881. Accordingly, this court affirms.

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

inform Chavez-Molina of the status of his appeal and of his future 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, 684 

P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Chavez-Molina 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.