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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JESSE REY JACQUEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0501

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-121271-001

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 Paul J. Prato

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-30-2018
STATE v. JACQUEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Jesse Rey Jacquez (“Jacquez”) appeals his convictions and 

sentences for three counts of aggravated assault and two counts of assault.

Jacquez’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating he has 

searched the record for error but could not identify any “arguable question 

of law that is not frivolous.” Jacquez’ counsel therefore requests that we 

review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 

537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (explaining that, after receiving an “Anders brief,” this 

Court reviews the entire record for reversible error). This Court allowed 

Jacquez to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he did not do so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona 

Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A) (2018).1 Finding no reversible error, 

we affirm Jacquez’ convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶3 Jacquez and C.P. (“Victim”) were involved in an “on and off”

relationship for approximately five years. On the evening of May 8, 2015, 

Jacquez drove to Victim’s home with the intent of questioning Victim about 

her Facebook account. Jacquez believed Victim was cheating on him

through her Facebook account. Once Victim was in his car, Jacquez 

immediately confronted her about cheating. Victim denied the allegation, 

and Jacquez subsequently hit Victim multiple times with his fist and a gun. 

He also choked Victim and pointed the gun at her, causing her to fear for 

 

1 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite

a statute’s current version.

2 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the

verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.” See State v.

Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998) (internal citation omitted).
STATE v. JACQUEZ

Decision of the Court

3

her life. After the altercation, Jacquez continued to drive around with 

Victim for several hours. Jacquez eventually left Victim near a gas station 

at approximately 2:00 a.m. the next morning. Victim called her mother, 

and, after seeing her daughter’s condition, Victim’s mother called the 

police. 

¶4 Jacquez was arrested the next day and taken into custody. He 

received Miranda3 warnings and, when questioned by the investigating

detective, he denied hitting Victim. The State filed a complaint against 

Jacquez on May 12, 2015, and a grand jury charged Jacquez by indictment 

on May 18, 2015. The grand jury charges included: aggravated assault for 

punching Victim in the head, a class six felony (Count 1); aggravated assault

for threatening Victim with a gun, a class three dangerous felony (Count 2); 

aggravated assault for causing various fractures to Victim’s body, a class 

four felony (Count 3); aggravated assault for choking Victim, a class four

felony (Count 4); aggravated assault for touching Victim with the intent to 

injure her, a class six felony (Count 5); and kidnapping for restraining 

Victim with the intent to injure her, a class two felony (Count 6). The State 

subsequently filed a supervening indictment, charging Jacques with the 

same crimes. The State also alleged several aggravating circumstances, 

including that the offenses: (1) involved the infliction of serious physical 

injuries; (2) caused physical, emotional and financial harm to Victim; and 

(3) were domestic violence offenses.

¶5 At trial, Jacquez admitted to lying in his interview with the 

investigating detective, stating that he feared being arrested and losing his 

family. He testified that he hit Victim after she pushed him and attempted 

to grab the steering wheel of his car. Jacquez also admitted to biting and 

choking Victim, but he maintained that he did not threaten Victim with a 

gun and he did not prevent Victim from leaving at any point during the 

night. 

¶6 The jury found Jacquez guilty of aggravated assault as to 

Counts 1, 3, and 4. The jury also found Jacquez guilty of assault, the lesser 

included offense for Counts 2 and 5. After return of the guilty verdicts, the 

court held an aggravation phase. The jury found aggravating 

circumstances for each of the five counts. 

¶7 At sentencing, the court considered the evidence presented at 

trial, a presentence report, letters and statements from Jacquez’ family, and 

mitigating and aggravating factors. The court found that the presumptive 

 

3 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
STATE v. JACQUEZ

Decision of the Court

4

sentence was appropriate and sentenced Jacquez as a non-dangerous, nonrepetitive offender as follows: 3 years’ supervised probation to begin after 

Jacquez’ prison term (Count 1); 89 days’ imprisonment with a terminal 

disposition for 89 days of presentence incarceration (Count 2); 2.5 years’ 

imprisonment with a credit for 89 days of presentence incarceration (Count

3); 2.5 years’ imprisonment with a credit for 89 days of presentence 

incarceration (Count 4); 30 days’ imprisonment with a terminal disposition

for 30 days of presentence incarceration (Count 5). The court ordered the 

imprisonment terms for Counts 3 and 4 to run concurrently, and the court 

left the issue of restitution open for a period of one year. 

ANALYSIS

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. The record reflects the proceedings 

were conducted in compliance with Jacquez’ constitutional and statutory 

rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. He was represented 

by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and was present at 

all critical stages. The State presented evidence sufficient to allow the jury 

to convict Jacquez, and the jury was properly comprised of twelve 

members. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the 

charges, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of a unanimous 

verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which was confirmed by 

juror polling. The court ultimately imposed legal sentences for the crimes 

of which Jacquez was convicted.

¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Jacquez of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Counsel has 

no further obligations related to this appeal unless, upon review, counsel 

finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by 

petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). 

Jacquez shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if 

he desires, with a motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶10 Jacquez’ convictions and sentences are affirmed.