NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

CESAR JOVANY ESTRADA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0714

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-162336-002

The Honorable Warren Granville, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Cynthia Dawn Beck

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ESTRADA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Andrew W. Gould

joined.

P O R T L E Y, Judge:

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

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant

Cesar Jovany Estrada 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 us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Estrada

was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. 

FACTS1

¶2 Estrada and Angel Lopez were at a Julioberto’s restaurant on 

December 7, 2012. After returning from the restroom, Estrada whistled,

and Lopez went up to the cashier and demanded the money. Lopez then

went to the drive-through register and took the money out of that register. 

During the robbery, which was caught on videotape, Estrada kept walking 

in and out of the restaurant, and he told Lopez to hurry. The pair split up, 

but the police arrested Lopez a short time later as he was running away 

with his pockets stuffed with money. After receiving information from 

Cecilia Johnson, Lopez’s girlfriend, the police located and arrested Estrada.

¶3 Estrada was indicted on two counts of aggravated robbery, a 

class 3 felony. During trial, the State called Johnson to testify and she 

responded to all the substantive questions with “I don’t know.” The court, 

as a result, allowed the State to use the statements she made to Detective 

Gonzalez.

 

1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict,

and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. 

Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89, 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997).
STATE v. ESTRADA

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The next day, the State notified the court that it had just 

discovered that Johnson had both a felony conviction that was more than 

ten years old and a misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude.

2 

Estrada moved for a mistrial, but the court determined that he could elicit 

testimony about the convictions directly from Johnson or Detective 

Gonzalez. The State, as a result, recalled Johnson, and again her response 

to every question was, “I don’t know.” The jury, however, heard about 

Johnson’s convictions from Detective Gonzalez. After an unsuccessful 

motion for directed verdict, final jury instructions and arguments, the jury 

convicted Estrada on both counts. He was subsequently sentenced to two 

six-year concurrent prison terms and credited with 240 days of presentence 

incarceration. 

¶5 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, 

Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes 

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

3

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have read and considered the opening brief and have 

searched the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon, 104 

Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Estrada was represented by 

counsel throughout the proceedings. And, his sentence, a mitigated term, 

was within the statutory limits.

¶7 After this decision is filed, counsel’s obligation to represent 

Estrada in this appeal has ended. Counsel need only inform Estrada of the 

status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel identifies an issue 

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

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

Estrada may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for 

review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

 

2 The State initially thought Johnson only had a misdemeanor conviction 

that did not involve moral turpitude and did not disclose the conviction.

3 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes absent changes 

material to this decision.
STATE v. ESTRADA

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Estrada’s convictions and sentences.