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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JESUS MARTIN ARELLANO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0848 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017-101643-001

The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Brown & Little PLC, Chandler

By Matthew O. Brown

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 2-6-2020
STATE v. ARELLANO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop

joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Defense counsel 

has searched the record on appeal and advised us there are no meritorious 

grounds for reversal. Jesus Arellano was given the opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief but did not do so. Our obligation is to review the entire 

record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Arellano, State v. 

Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). 

¶2 Late one evening, two individuals were in their car starting to

back out of a parking space when a truck sped by, nearly hitting the car.

The individuals followed the truck through the parking lot, honked, and 

told the driver—who was later identified as Arellano—something to the 

effect of “slow down.” As soon as the individuals pulled away from the 

truck, they heard several gunshots and quickly left the complex. 

¶3 According to Arellano, he was driving his truck through the 

parking lot at his apartment complex looking for a parking spot when he 

became involved in a confrontation. As a car pulled up next to Arellano’s 

truck, the two individuals in the car yelled at Arellano, and Arellano 

thought he saw a gun in the car. Arellano also believed he heard a gunshot. 

In response, he fired several shots from his own gun out his truck’s

window, and the car drove away. 

¶4 Both Arellano and the occupants of the car called the police. 

Upon arriving at the scene, police found no evidence of a gun in the car, but 

they did find two bullet holes in the back of the car matching the gun 

Arellano used. The State then indicted Arellano on two counts of 

aggravated assault and alleged both counts were dangerous offenses based 

on Arellano’s use of a weapon. 
STATE v. ARELLANO

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 The jury found Arellano guilty of two counts of the lesserincluded offense of disorderly conduct. The jury also found aggravating 

circumstances existed as to each count. The superior court then sentenced 

Arellano to 3 years on one count and 2.5 years on the other. Arellano was

given 136 days of presentence incarceration credit. Arellano timely 

appealed. 

¶6 After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible 

error. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects Arellano was present 

and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings against 

him. The evidence presented supports the convictions, and the sentences 

imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record 

reveals, these proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure and Arellano’s constitutional and statutory 

rights. Therefore, we affirm Arellano’s convictions and sentences. 

¶7 Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be 

appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, his obligations are 

fulfilled once he informs Arellano of the outcome of this appeal and his 

future options. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Arellano has 

30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro 

per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.