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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SHAUN MICHAEL SANTISTEVAN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0175 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-125565-001

The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Wendy L. Mays, Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Wendy L. Mays

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 6-5-2018
STATE v. SANTISTEVAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

B E E N E, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. 

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

following Shaun Michael Santistevan’s (“Santistevan”) conviction for 

aggravated assault, a class 3 dangerous felony. Santistevan’s counsel 

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

is not frivolous. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Counsel now 

asks us to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the 

entire record, we affirm Santistevan’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On May 29, 2016, S.W., the victim, was walking through a 

parking lot behind several buildings when he encountered Santistevan. 

Santistevan asked S.W. for a cigarette. S.W. sat next to Santistevan and was 

rolling a cigarette from his pouch of tobacco when Santistevan said, “Just 

let me get the whole pouch.” S.W. responded, “I don’t owe you anything. 

This is all I got.” S.W. then noticed Santistevan was wearing brass knuckles. 

When S.W. stood up to leave, Santistevan hit him in the back of the head. 

S.W. fell to the ground, and Santistevan struck S.W. in the head several 

more times before he could run away.

¶3 S.W. fled to a nearby Circle K where the cashier called the 

police to inform them of the incident. When the police arrived at the scene, 

S.W. was “actively bleeding.” One officer felt the lacerations on the back of 

S.W.’s head and determined that it was consistent with being hit with brass 

knuckles. S.W. gave the police a description of Santistevan. Another officer 

located Santistevan based on that description and several officers detained

 

1 “We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” 

State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2, ¶¶ 2-3 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).
STATE v. SANTISTEVAN

Decision of the Court

3

him. While Santistevan was detained, S.W. identified him as the assailant. 

Santistevan was then arrested.

¶4 Santistevan was charged with one count of aggravated 

assault, a class 3 dangerous felony. Santistevan proceeded to trial and was 

found guilty on that count. Santistevan was sentenced to a mitigated term 

of 6.5 years’ incarceration for aggravated assault. Santistevan timely 

appealed his conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 

9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 The record reflects no fundamental error in pretrial or trial 

proceedings. Santistevan either waived his right to counsel or was 

represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. He was also 

present at all critical stages of the proceedings. The superior court 

conducted a Donald2 hearing in Santistevan’s presence.

¶6 Having waived his right to counsel, Santistevan represented 

himself at trial and was assisted by advisory counsel. The jury was properly 

composed of eight jurors and two alternates. The State presented direct and 

circumstantial evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict. The 

court appropriately instructed the jury on the elements of the charge. The 

key instructions concerning burden of proof, presumption of innocence, 

reasonable doubt, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict were also 

properly administered. The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.

¶7 The superior court received a presentence report, accounted 

for aggravating and mitigating factors, and provided Santistevan an 

opportunity to speak at sentencing. The court properly imposed a legal 

sentence for the crime of which he was convicted.

CONCLUSION

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

find none; therefore, we affirm the conviction and resulting sentence.

¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligation 

pertaining to Santistevan’s representation in this appeal will end. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Santistevan of the outcome of this 

appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds “an issue 

 

2 State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000).
STATE v. SANTISTEVAN

Decision of the Court

4

appropriate for submission” to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the Court’s own 

motion, Santistevan has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if 

he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Further, Santistevan 

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

pro per petition for review.