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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERT FRANCO CORONADO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0164

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-123669-001 DT

The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Joel M. Glynn

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. CORONADO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Robert Franco Coronado (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction 

and sentence for disorderly conduct. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief 

in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), 

stating he has searched the record for error but failed to identify any

arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Appellant’s counsel therefore

requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 

196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this court 

reviews the entire record for reversible error). This court allowed Appellant 

to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Appellant has not done 

so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona 

Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”)

sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010).

1 

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶3 On June 2, 2015, a grand jury issued an indictment charging 

Appellant with one count of aggravated assault, a class three dangerous

domestic violence felony. See A.R.S. § 13-1204 (Supp. 2015). Before trial, 

the State filed allegations of historical priors, alleged Appellant had 

committed the charged offense while released from confinement pursuant 

 

1 We cite the current version of all applicable statutes because no 

revisions material to this decision have occurred since the date of the 

offense.

2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 

181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994).
STATE v. CORONADO

Decision of the Court

3

to A.R.S. § 13-708 (Supp. 2015), and further alleged the existence of several

aggravating circumstances.

¶4 At trial, the State presented the following evidence: On May 

23, 2015, S.M.S. (“the victim”) and Appellant began arguing in the family 

room of their parents’ home over the treatment of their sister, who was in 

the room watching television. Appellant appeared to be intoxicated. After 

the victim threatened to call the police, Appellant responded that he would 

“give [the victim] a good reason to call the cops” and went to the kitchen.

The victim’s daughter, who was also present, began to cry and scream, and 

Appellant returned to the family room and approached the victim with two 

knives. The victim picked up a bicycle and held it in front of her as a means 

of self-defense and to defend her children. Appellant used the knives to 

make noises with the bicycle tire’s rim, ostensibly to “scare” the victim. 

Appellant then put the knives in his pocket, walked up to his and the 

victim’s sister, apologized, and told her he loved her. The victim gathered 

her children, left the house, and called the police. After police officers 

arrived, Appellant refused to leave the home for more than three hours, 

until a Strategic Assignment Unit intervened and Appellant was eventually 

arrested.

¶5 The jury found Appellant not guilty of aggravated assault, 

and not guilty as to the lesser-included charge of assault, but did find 

Appellant guilty of the lesser-included charge of disorderly conduct, a class 

6 felony. See A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(6) (2010). The jury further found as 

aggravating circumstances that the offense involved the use, threatened 

use, or possession of a dangerous instrument, specifically two knives; was 

a domestic violence offense; and was committed while Appellant was on 

parole, community supervision, or any other release from confinement for 

conviction of a felony offense.

¶6 After finding that Appellant had four prior felony 

convictions, the court sentenced Appellant to a presumptive term of 3.75 

years’ imprisonment with credit for 272 days of presentence incarceration. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶7 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, 

¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and 

supports the verdict. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of 

the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. The 
STATE v. CORONADO

Decision of the Court

4

proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and 

statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶8 After filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Appellant’s representation in this appeal have ended. 

Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal 

and of his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue 

appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State 

v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant has 

thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro 

per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶9 Appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.