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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ALBERTO RIVAS, JR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0259 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2020-137557-001

The Honorable Michael C. Blair, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Thomas K. Baird

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-2-2023
STATE v. RIVAS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass

joined.

B A I 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 (1969). Counsel for Alberto Rivas, Jr. filed a 

brief advising this court that, after searching the entire record, he was 

unable to discover any arguable question of law and requesting that this 

court conduct an Anders review of the record. Rivas was given the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro per. Although he did not do so, 

he raised three issues through counsel that we address. For the following 

reasons, we affirm Rivas’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On October 6, 2020, the State charged Rivas with aggravated 

assault, a class three dangerous felony and a domestic violence offense. For 

sentencing purposes, the State also alleged Rivas had five historical prior 

felony convictions and other non-historical prior felony convictions. 

¶3 Before trial, Rivas’s counsel raised concerns as to Rivas’s 

competency to stand trial. Pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim. P., the 

superior court ordered Rivas to be evaluated. After reviewing the results 

of two medical evaluations, the court found that Rivas understood the 

nature of the proceedings and the charges brought against him and was

thus competent to stand trial. 

¶4 The State presented the following evidence at Rivas’s threeday jury trial: One day in October 2020, the victim returned home in 

Glendale from work and stepped out of his truck. Rivas approached the 

victim, and the two began to argue about money. When the victim told 

Rivas that he would not give Rivas any money, Rivas threatened to kill him

and picked up a kitchen knife. After telling Rivas to put the knife down,

the victim reentered his truck. Rivas then grabbed a saw, threatened to kill 

the victim again, and struck the truck window several times with the saw. 

The victim then drove his truck down the street to a neighbor’s house. The 
STATE v. RIVAS

Decision of the Court

3

victim told the neighbor that Rivas wanted to hurt him and asked the

neighbor to call 911. Police officers soon arrived and arrested Rivas. 

¶5 The jury found Rivas guilty as charged of one count of 

aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument and determined the

domestic violence allegation proven. After finding that Rivas had at least 

two non-dangerous prior felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him

to a minimum ten-year prison term, with 610 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. Rivas filed a timely notice of appeal. We have 

jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -

4033(A). 

DISCUSSION

¶6 In his supplemental brief, Rivas raised three issues through 

counsel. First, he asserts the jurors were “being offered payment through a 

commissary fund.” The record does not reveal any evidence of improper 

payments made to the jury. Jurors lawfully receive nominal compensation 

for their service, see A.R.S. § 21-221, they are not paid based on their verdict 

or any other result, see A.R.S. § 13-2808, and the record does not reveal any 

evidence of jury tampering or misconduct. Rivas has shown no error.

¶7 Second, Rivas claims that the person identified as the victim

at trial “was someone from a television news show.” Rivas appears to claim 

that the prosecution’s testifying victim was someone other than the actual

victim. However, no record evidence supports this claim. At trial, the 

testifying victim identified himself by name and Rivas neither objected nor 

made any effort to develop this issue on cross-examination. Rivas has 

shown no error, much less reversible error. 

¶8 Third, Rivas argues insufficient evidence supported his 

conviction. In addressing a sufficiency of the evidence argument, we do 

not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. See State v. Clark, 249 

Ariz. 528, 534, ¶ 21 (2020) (citation omitted). Instead, we determine whether 

substantial evidence supports the verdict, see id., while viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to affirming, id. at 531, ¶ 3 (citation 

omitted). The record reflects substantial evidence to support the verdict, as 

summarized above. 

¶9 We have searched the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (1999). Rivas was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and counsel was 

present at all critical stages. All proceedings were conducted in compliance 
STATE v. RIVAS

Decision of the Court

4

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rivas’s constitutional 

and statutory rights. The superior court permitted Rivas to speak at 

sentencing and imposed a sentence within the statutory limits, with proper 

credit given for presentence incarceration. 

CONCLUSION

¶10 For all the reasons stated above, we affirm Rivas’s conviction 

and sentence. Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is instructed to 

inform Rivas of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense 

counsel has no further obligations 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). Rivas will have 

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

per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.