NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 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.

ALAN CABALLERO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0668

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-151107001

The Honorable Scott McCoy, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office

By Thomas Bailey, Phoenix 

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office

By Joel M. Glynn, Phoenix

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. CABALLERO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as 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 Alan Caballero (defendant) has advised us that, after searching 

the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of 

law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of 

the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.

¶2 Mesa Police Officers E.S. and D.S. were dispatched to a Fry’s 

Food Store in Mesa for an unrelated medical-related emergency. When they 

arrived, Officer D.S. spotted defendant in the Fry’s parking lot making 

noises and yelling. D.S. approached defendant and told him to “cut it out,” 

however, defendant continued to act “erratically.” Officer D.S. told 

defendant he was being detained, defendant walked away. 

¶3 Officer D.S. then grabbed defendant by the shoulder, and told 

him he was under arrest. Defendant turned around and took a boxer’s

stance, which prompted Officer D.S. to throw defendant to the ground and

attempt to handcuff defendant. Officer E.S. assisted Officer D.S. with the 

arrest; defendant continued to pull his arms away in order to avoid being 

handcuffed. Once arrested, the officers drove defendant to the jail. 

¶4 On the way to jail, defendant threatened the officers alluding 

to his gang ties, which, according to both officers, caused them to be 

concerned for their safety. While in jail, a Mesa police officer photographed 

several gang-related tattoos on defendant’s face and body. Another officer, 

Officer A.G., met defendant and documented that defendant met three 

gang-member identification criteria: self-proclamation, clothing colors, and 

photographs of defendant’s tattoos. 

¶5 The state charged defendant with four counts: (1) Threatening 

or Intimidating [Victim: Officer E.S.], a class six felony; (2) Threatening or 

Intimidating [Victim: Officer D.S.], a class six felony; (3) Resisting Arrest 
STATE v. CABALLERO

Decision of the Court

3

[Victims: Officer D.S. and/or Officer E.S.], a class six felony; and (4) 

Disorderly Conduct, a class one misdemeanor. Counts one and two of the 

Indictment further alleged that defendant “was a criminal street gang 

member.” 

¶6 A jury convicted defendant of counts one, two 

and three. Defendant was acquitted of count four. The trial court sentenced 

defendant to a slightly-mitigated prison term of three years on each count, 

ordered all three sentences to run concurrently, and gave him 343 days of 

presentence incarceration credit. 

¶7 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and 

we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 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. Defendant has thirty days 

from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an 

in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶8 We affirm the convictions and sentences.