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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOSHUA SANORA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0579

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-108724-001

The Honorable Teresa A. Sanders, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Michael J. Dew

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SANORA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Joshua Sanora (“Defendant”) appeals from his convictions

and sentences for three counts of attempted sexual assault and one count of

kidnapping. Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

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

advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no 

arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant was granted leave to file a 

supplemental brief in propria persona, and did so. 

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record 

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

have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 

Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (West 2015).1 Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History2

¶3 Police responded to a 911 call reporting a kidnapping and 

sexual assault in an apartment building. When the officers arrived at the 

victim’s apartment they found the Defendant in the victim’s bedroom and 

arrested him. 

¶4 The victim testified at trial that Defendant entered an elevator 

with her, and then showed her a note stating he had a gun. The victim tried 

 

1 We cite to the current version of the applicable statutes because no 

revisions material to this decision have occurred.

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

convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 

(1989).
STATE v. SANORA

Decision of the Court

3

to scream for help, but Defendant placed his hand over her mouth. 

Defendant followed the victim to her apartment and locked the door after 

they entered. The victim asked if she could leave the apartment several 

times, but Defendant would not let her go. 

¶5 Defendant told the victim to go into the bedroom and lay 

down. Defendant produced handmade hangman games, and instructed 

the victim that if she lost the game, then she would be required to perform 

the sexual act described on the back of the game. The victim refused to 

perform the sexual acts on Defendant. 

¶6 After the victim refused him, Defendant pulled down her

underwear. Defendant attempted to have intercourse with the victim, but 

he was not able to initially penetrate the victim’s vagina. Defendant briefly 

stopped, but at some point in time was later able to penetrate the victim’s 

vagina and anus with his penis. The victim told Defendant that she wanted 

him to stop, and that she did not want to participate in the sexual acts. 

¶7 Officer Milbourn testified that after he arrested Defendant, he

searched him and found several notes. These notes stated that Defendant 

had a gun; included a threat to harm someone, ostensibly the victim, if she 

tried to call for help; and instructed the victim to take Defendant to her 

residence. The notes also included hangman games with descriptions of 

sexual acts on the back. 

¶8 DNA evidence was introduced at trial showing that 

Defendant’s sperm was found in the victim’s vagina and anus. 

Additionally, a nurse testified that the victim suffered bruising to both arms 

and abrasions to her perineal area. The nurse described these injuries as

blunt force trauma injuries. 

¶9 The jury found Defendant guilty of attempted sexual assault, 

a lesser-included offense of count one; attempted sexual assault, a lesserincluded offense of count two; count three, attempted sexual assault; and 

count four, kidnapping. 

¶10 The trial court found Defendant had two historical prior 

felony convictions. The court sentenced Defendant to repetitive, 

presumptive prison terms of 11.25 years as to counts one, two, and three, 

and a repetitive, presumptive prison term of 15.75 years as to count four. 

The court ordered the sentences in counts one, two and three to be served 

consecutively, and the sentences in counts one and four to be served 

concurrently. The court awarded Defendant 538 days’ credit for time 

served as to counts one and four. 
STATE v. SANORA

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶11 Defendant filed a supplemental brief claiming that the 

prosecutor improperly withheld exculpatory evidence. Specifically, 

Defendant asserts the prosecutor failed to disclose photographs showing 

the nature of the alleged bruises on the victim’s arms. Because Defendant 

did not raise this issue in the trial court, we review for fundamental error. 

State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 568, ¶ 26 (2005). 

¶12 Defendant does not claim the State failed to disclose the 

victim’s injuries, or that the examining nurse would testify about those 

injuries. Indeed, the nurse testified in detail about the victim’s injuries. 

Rather, the only issue raised by Defendant is that the State did not provide 

photographs of these injuries. However, Defendant fails to show how the 

lack of photographs prejudiced him. Accordingly, we find no fundamental 

error. 

¶13 Defendant also argues the State failed to disclose Odeniel 

Sertil as a witness. We disagree. The record shows that Sertil was listed as 

a witness in the State’s joint pretrial statement. 

¶14 Defendant accuses the State of committing prosecutorial 

misconduct by admitting handwritten papers into evidence without proper 

foundation. In essence, Defendant objects to the trial court’s admission of 

this evidence. We review a trial court’s ruling concerning the admission of 

evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. George, 206 Ariz. 436, 446, ¶ 28 

(App. 2003). 

¶15 The papers were properly admitted. Officer Milbourn 

testified that he found the notes in Defendant’s pocket; the notes matched 

the victim’s description of the notes handed to her by Defendant; and the 

notes contained relevant, inculpatory statements. Ariz. R. Evid. 403, 901(a).

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 

notes. 

¶16 Defendant contends that one of the jurors said “no” when 

polled as to whether the verdicts were his true verdicts. This contention 

misstates the record. All of the jurors were polled and confirmed that the 

guilty verdicts were their true verdicts. 

¶17 Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by instructing the 

jury to “please” consider the lesser-included offense if the jury either found 

Defendant not guilty of the greater offense or could not agree on the verdict 

as to the greater offense. Defendant did not object to this jury instruction 
STATE v. SANORA

Decision of the Court

5

and has failed to show how adding “please” to the jury instruction 

prejudiced him in any way. By failing to object to the jury instructions, 

Defendant waived any defects. State v. Van Winkle, 126 Ariz. 476, 477 (App. 

1980). 

¶18 Defendant argues that the trial court improperly imposed an 

aggravated sentence. The court did not impose an aggravated sentence. 

Rather, the court sentenced Defendant to presumptive terms for each 

conviction. 

¶19 Defendant asserts the trial court improperly imposed 

consecutive sentences for his attempted sexual assault convictions. We 

review a trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences de novo. State v. 

Urquidez, 213 Ariz. 50, 52, ¶ 6 (App. 2006). 

¶20 Here, the record shows that consecutive sentences were 

proper because each conviction for attempted sexual assault was based on 

a separate act and placed the victim under a different risk of harm. 

Urquidez, 213 Ariz. at 52, ¶ 7; State v. Gordon, 161 Ariz. 308, 315 (1989). Count 

one involved Defendant’s attempted penetration of the victim’s vagina; 

count two involved Defendant’s attempted penetration of her anus; and 

count three involved a separate, earlier attempt at vaginal penetration. 

Accordingly, the court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. 

¶21 We have read and considered counsel’s brief, carefully 

searched the entire record for reversible error and found none. Clark, 196 

Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence 

supported the finding of guilt. Defendant was present and represented by 

counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing, Defendant 

and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak and the court imposed 

a legal sentence.

¶22 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Defendant’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more 

than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and his future options, 

unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the 

Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 

582, 584–85 (1984). Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.
STATE v. SANORA

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶23 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s convictions and 

sentences are affirmed.