NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

JESUS BLAS GARCIA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0438

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-00616-002

The Honorable Karen L. O’Connor, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Cory Engle

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 Jesus Blas Garcia (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction and 

sentence. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. 

Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and 

State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has 

searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that 

is not frivolous. Appellant’s counsel therefore requests that we review the 

record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 

P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). In addition, this court has allowed Appellant to 

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

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona 

Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statute (“A.R.S.”) 

§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A) (West 2014).

1 Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶3 On October 9, 2011, victim A.M. was working as a 

pharmacist at a Phoenix pharmacy. At approximately 1:30 p.m., a woman 

handed A.M. a note demanding “all of your percocet 35 and oxy 80, don’t 

say a word or I’ll start shooting.” A.M. noticed a man standing next to the 

woman; the man was holding a gun at hip level, pointing it at A.M. A.M. 

later identified the man in a pre-trial photo lineup and in court as 

 

1 Although the Arizona Legislature amended statutes cited in this 

decision after Appellant’s indictment, the revisions are immaterial. Thus 

we cite to the current version of these stautes.

2 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State 

v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994).
STATE v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

3

Appellant. Appellant waved the gun at A.M., and she gathered 

oxycodone3 pills and placed them in a bag. After A.M. gave the bag of 

pills to Appellant, the woman forced A.M. to return the note. A.M. valued 

the stolen medication at approximately $3557. In court, the woman 

admitted she handed the note to A.M., and identified herself from 

surveillance photographs of the robbery. A Phoenix police officer 

testified that, when interviewed, Appellant admitted he had participated 

in the robbery.

¶4 Later that week, on October 14, 2011, victim K.S. was 

working as a pharmacist at a second Phoenix pharmacy. That afternoon, a 

man approached the pharmacy counter and handed him a note 

demanding oxycodone pills. The man pulled up his shirt to show K.S. a 

gun tucked into his waistband. K.S. retrieved oxycodone pills from the 

store’s safe and gave the medication to the man. K.S. valued the stolen 

medication at approximately $3120. Throughout the robbery, a woman 

stood behind the man; K.S. testified he thought she was “watching the 

scene and making sure that everything was safe for him to keep on going 

with his task.” In court, that woman admitted that she participated in the 

robbery with Appellant. A Phoenix police officer testified Appellant said 

that during the robbery he had carried a B.B. gun painted to look like a .45 

caliber gun. According to the officer, Appellant also admitted he and an 

accomplice sold the stolen pills.

¶5 The next week, on October 20, 2011, victim F.K. was working 

as a pharmacist at a third Phoenix pharmacy. During the early afternoon, 

a man passed her a note instructing her to be quiet and get oxycodone. 

F.K. noticed the man had a gun tucked into his pants. At trial, F.K. 

identified Appellant as the man. F.K. bagged oxycodone pills and gave 

the bag to Appellant, who left the store with another man. F.K. valued the 

stolen medication at approximately $887. 

 

3 Oxycodone is “[a]n opioid agonist administered orally . . . to 

manage moderate to severe pain.” Donald Venes et al., Taber’s Cyclopedic 

Medical Dictionary 1670 (21st ed. 2009). Oxycodone is commercially 

available in various formulations, including OxyContin and Percocet. 

Oxycontin is “[o]xycodone in a long-acting form.” Id. Percocet is a 

formulation of oxycodone and acetaminophen. Judith Harper Deglin & 

April Hazard Valleran, Davis’s Drug Guide for Nurses (11th ed. 2009). 

While the record reflects various amounts of oxycodone, Oxycontin, and 

Percocet were stolen, hereafter we will refer to oxycodone exclusively.
STATE v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

4

¶6 Less than a week later, on October 25, 2011, victim T.P., a 

pharmacy technician, was working at a fourth Phoenix pharmacy. A

woman handed T.P. a note demanding oxycodone, and a man pointed a 

gun at her. As a technician, T.P. was unable to open the narcotic safe 

herself. She handed the note to victim W.W., a pharmacist, who removed 

the medication from the safe. When W.W. handed the pills to Appellant, 

the woman made T.P. return the note. In court, the woman identified 

herself, Appellant, and another accomplice who served as a lookout from 

surveillance photographs of the robbery. The lookout identified 

Appellant from the surveillance photographs, and confirmed Appellant 

had been armed with a gun. W.W. valued the stolen pills at 

approximately $769. T.P. and W.W. later identified both the man and the 

woman from photo lineups. In court, both victims identified the man as 

Appellant.

¶7 The next day, October 26, 2011, victim J.V., a pharmacy 

technician, was working at a fifth Phoenix pharmacy. That afternoon, a 

woman handed J.V. a note demanding oxycodone. J.V. gave the note to 

the pharmacist, victim J.D. When J.D. looked up from the note, the man 

showed her a gun. She later identified the man and the woman from 

police photo lineups. J.D. bagged several bottles of oxycodone pills and 

gave them to the man. J.D. testified the pills were worth approximately 

$5833. In court, the woman who handed J.V. the note identified herself, 

Appellant, and a second accomplice from surveillance photographs of the 

robbery. The second accomplice testified that Appellant had carried a 

gun. 

¶8 Less than a week later, on October 30, 2011, victim K.W. was 

working as a pharmacist at a sixth Phoenix pharmacy. A man walked up 

to the pharmacy counter and handed her a note demanding oxycodone, 

threatening to shoot her if she did not comply. In court, K.W. identified 

Appellant as the man. K.W. gathered oxycodone pills from the narcotic 

safe, bagged them, and handed them to Appellant. The pills were valued 

at approximately $3625.

¶9 Later that same day, a man handed a note to victim N.P., a 

pharmacist at a seventh Phoenix pharmacy. He was accompanied by 

another man. The note demanded oxycodone, and stated that they had a 

gun. The man lifted his shirt to show N.P. what she assumed was a gun. 

She then retrieved the pills, placed them in a bag, and gave the bag to the 

man who had given her the note. The pills were worth approximately 

$145. 
STATE v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

5

¶10 Less than two weeks later, on November 11, 2011, victim 

H.D., a pharmacy technician, was working at an eighth Phoenix 

pharmacy. A man approached the pharmacy counter, handed H.D. a note 

demanding oxycodone, and showed H.D. a gun. The man’s accomplice 

opened his jacket to reveal a second gun. As he was unable to access the 

narcotic safe himself, H.D. handed the note to victim P.P., a pharmacist. 

P.P. retrieved oxycodone pills from the pharmacy safe and gave them to 

the men. The pills were worth approximately $22,268. In court, P.P. 

identified Appellant as one of the men who robbed her. A Phoenix police 

officer testified that, during an interview, Appellant’s accomplice 

identified himself and Appellant from surveillance photos of the robbery.

The accomplice also admitted that during the robbery he carried a B.B. 

gun painted to look like a .45 caliber gun. 

¶11 Later that month, Chandler police officers arrested 

Appellant on unrelated matters. Upon impounding his property, police 

found a note with Appellant’s personal property linking him to the 

oxycodone robberies that read, “Be quiet. Give me all Percocet 30mm and 

the oxy 80mm that you have.“ The Chandler Police Department contacted 

the Phoenix Police Department, which then interviewed Appellant in 

connection with the robberies. During the interview, Appellant revealed 

the names of his accomplices. 

¶12 In February 2012, a grand jury issued an indictment 

charging Appellant with twenty-one counts stemming from the series of 

robberies. The State charged Appellant with eleven counts of armed 

robbery, each a class two dangerous felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-

3408; eight counts of possession of narcotic drugs for sale, each a class two 

felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-3408; one count of misconduct 

involving firearms, a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-3102, 

stemming from the October 9, 2011 robbery; and one count of illegal 

control of an enterprise, a class three felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-

2312, stemming from the series of robberies. The State also alleged four 

historical priors that would subject Appellant to enhanced sentencing.

¶13 The State further alleged that the counts stemming from 

each separate robbery were all multiple offenses committed on the same 

occasion, but consolidated for trial such that each group would be a prior 

for the others. The State later alleged six aggravating factors, including 

the presence of an accomplice and the use, threatened use or possession of 

a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument during the commission of the 
STATE v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

6

crime.4 Before trial, the court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the 

count of illegal control of an enterprise.

¶14 After an eleven day trial, the twelve-person jury found 

Appellant guilty of the charged offenses. For each count of armed 

robbery, the jury found the State proved the aggravating factor of 

infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm. The jury also 

found the State proved the aggravating factor of presence of an 

accomplice for all counts, excepting the charge of misconduct involving 

weapons. For each count of armed robbery, the jury found the State 

proved the aggravating factor of pecuniary gain. For each count of 

possession of narcotics for sale, the jury found the State proved the 

aggravating factor that the value of the drugs involved was over the 

statutory threshold of $1000. The jury also concluded that the armed 

robbery counts stemming from the October 9, October 14, October 20, 

October 25, and November 11 incidents were serious and violent offenses 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-706.

¶15 At sentencing, the trial court found Appellant had four 

historical prior felony convictions for enhancement purposes. The trial 

court also found Appellant had been previously convicted of all counts in 

the instant case, as those cases had been consolidated for trial.

¶16 After review of the presentence investigation report, the trial 

court organized the convictions into six groups, imposing six sets of 

concurrent sentences to be served consecutively to one another. For the 

counts stemming from the October 9 robbery, the court imposed an 

aggravated sentence of 21 years, and two presumptive sentences, each 

15.75 years. For the counts stemming from the October 14 robbery, the 

court imposed a presumptive sentence of 21 years, and a presumptive 

sentence of 15.75 years. For the counts stemming from the October 25 

robbery, the court imposed a presumptive sentence of 28 years, and two 

presumptive sentences of 15.75 years. For the counts stemming from the 

October 20 and October 26 robberies, the court imposed a presumptive 

sentence of 28 years, and three presumptive sentences of 15.75 years. For 

the counts stemming from the October 30 robberies, the court imposed 

four presumptive sentences of 15.75 years. For the counts stemming from 

the November 11 robberies, the court imposed a presumptive sentence of 

28 years, and two presumptive sentences of 15.75 years. Appellant also 

 

4 The parties agreed to stipulate that Appellant was a prohibited 

possessor on October 9, 2011.
STATE v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

7

received 435 days of presentence incarceration credit. Appellant filed a 

timely notice of appeal.

ANALYSIS

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 

537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96.

¶18 Appellant was charged with eleven counts of armed 

robbery, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1904(A)(2). Under A.R.S. § 13-

1904(A)(1), “A person commits armed robbery if, in the course of 

committing a robbery as defined in §§ 13-1902, such person or an 

accomplice . . . is armed with a deadly weapon or a simulated deadly 

weapon.” Under A.R.S. § 13-1902(A), “A person commits armed robbery 

if in the course of taking any property of another from his . . . immediate 

presence and against his will, such person threatens or uses force against 

any person with intent either to coerce surrender of property or to prevent 

resistance to such person taking or retaining property.” Appellant was 

also charged with eight counts of possession of narcotics for sale, in 

violation of A.R.S. § 13-3408(A)(2). Under A.R.S. § 13-3408(A)(2), “A 

person shall not knowingly . . . possess a narcotic drug for sale.”

¶19 Appellant stipulated that on October 9, 2011, he was a 

prohibited possessor of a firearm, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3101(A)(7). 

The relevant subparts of A.R.S. § 13-3101(A)(7) define “prohibited 

possessor” as “any person . . . who has been found to constitute a danger 

to self or others . . . pursuant to court order . . . and whose right to possess 

a firearm has not been restored” and “any person who is an 

undocumented alien or a nonimmigrant alien traveling with or without 

documentation in this state.” A.R.S. § 13-3101(A)(7)(b), (e).

¶20 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdict, and the sentencing proceedings followed the statutory 

requirements. Appellant was represented by counsel at critical stages of 

the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. 

The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional 

and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶21 After filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Appellant’s representation in this appeal have ended. 

Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the 

appeal and of his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue 

appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See 
STATE v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

8

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

Appellant 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.

CONCLUSION

¶22 Appellant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.