NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

ALFREDO HERRERA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 12-0732

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007-007522-003 

The Honorable Karen L. O’Connor, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern, Chandler

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
STATE v. HERRERA

Decision of the Court

2

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Alfredo Herrera (defendant) timely appeals his convictions 

and sentences for one count of first degree murder, five counts of 

attempted first degree murder, five counts of aggravated assault, one 

count of drive-by shooting, one count of unlawful flight from law 

enforcement vehicle, one count of disorderly conduct, and one count of 

misconduct involving weapons. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), counsel for 

defendant has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has 

been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief 

requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. 

Defendant has been afforded an opportuntity to file a supplemental brief 

in propia persona, and he has not done so. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On April 1, 2005, Phoenix Police Department officers

responded to a 911 call at defendant’s home in Phoenix. Defendant 

informed the officers that he was standing outside by his white Mercedes 

when three vehicles, a gray or black SUV and two Nissan type vehicles,

drove by and fired gunshots at his house. The officers noticed several 

bullet strikes to the outside of the house and window, and through the 

rear window of defendant’s vehicle. Defendant admitted that he had used 

a gun to fire back at the vehicles and that he was a prohibited possessor, 

but the officers were unable to locate a gun. Defendant became 

increasingly agitated, and the officers left after determining defendant 

would not be cooperative in the investigation. Officers returned to 

defendant’s home later that evening after receiving a call that one of the 

vehicles suspected to be involved in the shooting repeatedly drove by the 

house. While there, officers noticed a gray vehicle slowly drive by 

defendant’s house. The officers unsuccessfully attempted to stop the 

vehicle, but were able to secure its license plate number. 

¶3 The following evening, J.G. was driving his white Ford 

Taurus in defendant’s neighborhood trying to find the location of a party 

with his two cousins, C.V. and Jonathan, and three friends, G.S., Y.R., and 

L.Z. Defendant and multiple accomplices were at defendant’s house

trying to guard it in case the shooters from the previous night returned. 

Defendant carried a 9 mm gun and a walkie-talkie, and was wearing a 

bullet-proof vest. His accomplices also carried walkie-talkies and 

weapons, including a black assault rifle and an AK-47. After defendant 

noticed J.G.’s vehicle drive by his house three times, he and four
STATE v. HERRERA

Decision of the Court

3

accomplices jumped into defendant’s Mercedes and chased after it. When 

J.G. stopped his vehicle at a stop sign, defendant drove up alongside J.G.’s 

car and stopped next to him. Defendant jumped out of his car and stated, 

“Why you all keep passing by my house?” Defendant and his 

accomplices then immediately began shooting at J.G. and the other 

victims. 

¶4 Upon hearing the gunshots, J.G. quickly sped off through 

the neighborhood “trying to get away.” Defendant chased after J.G.’s 

vehicle, stating, “I got more rounds.” J.G. called 911 as he drove, while 

defendant swerved in and out of traffic trying to catch up to J.G.’s vehicle. 

When defendant caught up with the J.G.’s vehicle, he fired additional 

gunshots at the car. J.G. estimated that at least twenty to thirty rounds 

were shot at his vehicle. Although J.G. could not see the driver, he was 

later able to identify two of defendant’s accomplices, one of whom was 

wearing a blue Dodgers’ hat.

¶5 While J.G. slowed his car to change directions, L.Z. jumped 

from the vehicle and ran to a nearby house for assistance. J.G. continued 

driving towards a hospital until he was eventually able to get emergency 

vehicles to stop and render assistance. As a result of the shootings, J.G.

sustained gunshot injuries to his face, arm, and back; Y.R. sustained 

injuries to her spinal cord that left her paralyzed from the waist down; 

C.V. sustained injuries to his knee and hand; L.Z. sustained injuries to her 

fingers and legs; G.S. sustained a head injury; and Jonathan died from his 

gunshot injuries. All of the victims feared for their lives during the 

incident. 

¶6 During the chase, an off-duty Phoenix police officer heard 

approximately eight to ten gunshots and observed what appeared to be 

gunshots coming from a Mercedes and striking a white vehicle traveling 

ahead of it. Another officer also observed defendant’s white Mercedes 

travelling at a high rate of speed. The officer followed defendant’s 

vehicle, watching as it switched lanes back and forth, before losing sight 

of the vehicle when it abruptly turned onto an access road. A police 

helicopter assisted the officers and continued to follow defendant’s 

vehicle. Defendant’s accomplices eventually jumped out of the vehicle

and fled. Defendant drove his vehicle into the driveway of a house and 

then disappeared from view in the surrounding vegetation. Officers 

found defedant’s accomplices hiding in a nearby yard and under a truck, 

whereby they were taken into custody and arrested. Officers also found

an empty gun holster on the driver’s side floorboard of defendant’s 

vehicle; and collected two weapons, one of which was a black assault 
STATE v. HERRERA

Decision of the Court

4

riffle; shell casings; a blue Dodgers’ hat; walkie-talkies; and a bullet proof 

vest, all in the vicinity of defendant’s abandoned Mercedes. Defendant 

was subsequently arrested on August 30, 2007. 

¶7 After a jury trial, the jury found defendant guilty of one 

count of first murder, a class 1 dangerous felony (count 1); five counts of 

attempted first degree murder, class 2 dangerous felonies (counts 2 - 6); 

five counts of aggravated assault, class 3 dangerous felonies (counts 7 -

11); one count of drive-by-shooting, a class 2 dangerous felony (count 12); 

one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 

felony (count 13); one count of disorderly conduct, a class 6 dangerous 

felony (count 15); and one count of misconduct involving a weapon, a 

class 4 felony (count 17). The jury also found an aggravating circumstance 

as to count one: defendant’s prior conviction for a serious offense. 

Additionally, the court found that defendant had four prior felony 

convictions when he committed the offenses. The trial court sentenced 

defendant to a term of natural life on count 1; maximum, consecutive 

twenty-one year prison terms on counts 2 through 6; maximum, 

concurrent fifteen year prison terms on counts 7 through 11; a maximum, 

concurrent twenty-one year prison term on count 12; a presumptive, 

concurrent five year prison term on count 13; a maximum, concurrent 

three year prison term on count 15; and a presumptive, concurrent ten

year prison term on count 17. Defendant received 1,913 days presentence 

incarceration credit on each count, with the exception of counts 2 through 

6.

DISCUSSION

¶8 After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, we 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory 

limits. Defendant was present at all critical stages of the proceedings and 

was represented by counsel. Furthermore, based on our review of the 

record before us, substantial evidence supports the jury's verdicts.

¶9 We have, however, noted an error in the sentencing minute 

entry. The sentencing minute entry ordered defendant to “submit to DNA 

testing for law enforcement identification purposes and pay the applicable 

fee for the cost of that testing in accordance with [Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section] 13–610 [(Supp. 2013)].” However, A.R.S. § 13–

610 does not authorize the trial court to order a convicted person to pay 

for the cost of DNA testing. State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 14, 307 
STATE v. HERRERA

Decision of the Court

5

P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013). Therefore, we vacate that portion of the 

sentencing minute entry which requires defendant to do so. Accordingly, 

we affirm defendant's convictions and sentences as modified.

¶10 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 

154, 156-57 (1984), defendant’s counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at 

an end. Unless, upon review, counsel discovers an issue appropriate for 

petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel must only 

inform defendant of the status of this appeal and defendant's future 

options. Id. Defendant 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.