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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ADRIAN RUIZ ESPINOZA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0850

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2013-103414-001

The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenBerg, Commissioner

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Ballecer & Segal, Phoenix

By Natalee E. Segal

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Adrian Ruiz Espinoza timely appeals from his conviction and 

sentence for knowingly possessing a shotgun while being a prohibited 

possessor in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-

3102(A)(4) (Supp. 2014), a class 4 felony.1 After searching the record on 

appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, 

Espinoza’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 

297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for 

fundamental error. This court granted counsel’s motion to allow Espinoza 

to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Espinoza did not do so. 

After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, 

therefore, affirm Espinoza’s conviction and sentence as corrected.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

¶2 On the evening of January 18, 2013, two Mesa police officers 

saw a car, driven by a man with a woman passenger, with no headlights 

and a smashed-in front windshield. The car stopped at a carwash, and the 

officers pulled up behind it.

¶3 One of the officers confirmed the car was registered to both 

the woman and Espinoza, and the woman authorized the officers to search 

the car. Before the officers began their search, Espinoza told one of the 

officers a gun was in a case on the floorboard behind him. When the officer

opened the back passenger door, he saw a backpack—that the police later 

determined contained items belonging to Espinoza—laying partially over 

 

1Although the Arizona Legislature amended certain statutes

after Espinoza’s offense, the amendments are irrelevant to and do not affect 

the outcome of this case. Thus, we cite to the current version of the statutes.

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

the jury’s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Espinoza. 

See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 
STATE v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

3

the gun case. The gun case contained a shotgun. The police also found a

knife near the gun case and backpack.

¶4 The State charged Espinoza with two counts of misconduct 

involving weapons, specifically knowingly possessing a shotgun, and a 

knife, both deadly weapons, while being a prohibited possessor in violation 

of A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4), a class 4 felony. At trial, the State presented 

evidence that Espinoza had been convicted of a felony in 2009 and was on 

community supervision on January 18, 2013. The jury found Espinoza 

guilty of misconduct involving weapons for possession of the shotgun, but 

not guilty of misconduct involving weapons for possession of the knife.

After the jury returned its verdicts, Espinoza admitted he was on 

community supervision on the date of the offense and had four historical

prior felony convictions.

¶5 The superior court found Espinoza was a category three 

repetitive offender and sentenced him to the presumptive term of 10 years 

with 293 days of presentence incarceration credit. See A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J)

(Supp. 2014).

DISCUSSION

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Espinoza received a 

fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings 

and was present at all critical stages.

¶7 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdict. The jury was properly comprised of 12 members and the court 

properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Espinoza’s 

presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of 

a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a 

presentence report, Espinoza was given an opportunity to, and did, speak 

at sentencing, and his sentence was within the range of acceptable sentences 

for his offense.

¶8 In our review of the record, we discovered an error in the 

superior court’s sentencing minute entry. The minute entry incorrectly lists 

Espinoza’s prior aggravated assault conviction as Maricopa County 

Superior Court Cause No. CR2009-128745-001. The aggravated assault 

conviction cause number is the same cause number as the armed robbery 

conviction, CR2009-128756-001, thus we correct the minute entry to read the 

same. 
STATE v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶9 We decline to order briefing and affirm Espinoza’s conviction 

and sentence as corrected.

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

pertaining to Espinoza’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

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

appeal and his future options, 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, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 

(1984).

¶11 Espinoza has 30 days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the 

court’s own motion, we also grant Espinoza 30 days from the date of this 

decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.