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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERTO JOSE SOTO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0172 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2022-113606-001

The Honorable Margaret LaBianca, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Cory Engle

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 11-28-2023
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

F O S T E R, 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 defendant Roberto Soto

found no arguable question of law and requests that this Court review the 

record for fundamental error. Soto was convicted of two counts of

aggravated assault, a class three felony and one count of disorderly 

conduct, a class six felony, all three were classified as dangerous and 

repetitive offenses. Soto was given the opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. This Court has reviewed the 

record and found no reversible error. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 

196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Accordingly, Soto’s convictions, 

resulting prison sentences and restitution are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In this appeal, the facts are viewed in the light most favorable 

to sustaining the judgment and this Court resolves all reasonable inferences 

against Soto. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 On April 15, 2022, Soto and a friend were walking at a train 

station towards three people. Heated words were exchanged between the 

friend and the victims (hereinafter, “V.B.” and “V.A.”). Soto then reached 

for a knife on his right hip and approached V.A. showing the knife in his 

hand. As Soto advanced, V.B. stood up in front of V.A., who was still seated.

Soto, who was within three to four feet of V.A. and V.B., lunged at them a 

couple of times with the knife still in his hand. V.A. later stated that he 

thought he was never going to see his daughter again.

¶4 Security guards on the platform at the time waived down a 

nearby patrol car; the officer inside had also witnessed some of the events 

and quickly detained Soto. While detaining Soto, the officer located a knife 

in a sheath on the right side of Soto’s waistband. Following the altercation, 

the officer spoke with V.A., V.B., and V.B.’s wife. Surveillance video from 

the light rail station showed a man wearing a yellow shirt pull a knife from 
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

3

his waist and move towards three people. Soto was wearing a yellow shirt

when detained. Officers arrested Soto and charged him with two counts of

aggravated assault, class three dangerous and repetitive felonies, and one 

count of disorderly conduct, a class six dangerous and repetitive felony. 

Soto pled not guilty to the charges.

¶5 A jury trial started on January 11, 2023, and lasted three days. 

The parties agreed to the jury instructions. Soto’s presence was waived

when his counsel discussed procedural issues with the State and court. 

After evidence was presented, the jury returned a guilty verdict for the 

charged offenses. Before sentencing, the State filed motions outlining prior 

convictions and aggravating circumstances that would justify an increased 

sentence should Soto be convicted. The parties conducted a trial as to the 

aggravating circumstances, and the jury returned a guilty verdict as to eight 

aggravating factors. 

¶6 At sentencing, the court found Soto’s mental health issues to 

be a mitigating factor. For the first aggravated assault conviction, the court 

sentenced Soto to 12 years in the Department of Corrections, with credit for 

358 days he had already spent in custody. On the second aggravated assault 

charge, Soto was also sentenced to 12 years. On the disorderly conduct 

charge, Soto was sentenced to 4.5 years. The trial court ordered the

sentences to run concurrently.

¶7 This Court has jurisdiction over Soto’s timely appeal pursuant 

to Article 6, § 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 

13-4031 and 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Soto’s convictions and sentences are reviewed for 

fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). 

After reviewing the record, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.

¶9 All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Arizona Rules of Evidence, and 

constitutional requirements. Soto was represented by counsel at all critical 

stages, and his presence was voluntarily waived during portions of the 

proceedings. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1; State v. Fristoe, 135 Ariz. 25, 34 (App. 

1982) (“a defendant may waive his right to be present at any proceeding by 

voluntarily absenting himself from it”). The superior court permitted Soto 

to speak at sentencing, stated the factors it had considered and imposed a 

sentence within the statutory limits, with proper credit for time in custody. 
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

4

This Court declines to order briefing and affirms Soto’s convictions and 

sentences. 

¶10 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Soto of the status of the appeal and of his future options. 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). Soto shall have 30 days from 

the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms Soto’s 

convictions and sentences.