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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

HECTOR ERNESTO SOTO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0417

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-000423-001

The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Nicole Farnum, Phoenix

By Nicole T. Farnum

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Hector Soto appeals his conviction of voyeurism, a class 5 

felony, and the resulting imposition of probation. Soto’s counsel filed a 

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State 

v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent 

search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not 

frivolous. Soto was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but 

did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible 

error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). 

After reviewing the record, we affirm Soto’s conviction and the imposition 

of probation.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Soto and the victim’s grandmother1 had a relationship on and 

off beginning in 1998. Soto became a father figure to the victim and her 

siblings.

¶3 In April 2011, Soto was looking after the victim and her 

siblings at their grandmother’s house. While the victim was taking a 

shower, Soto entered the bathroom, opened the shower curtain and “looked 

[the victim] up and down” for “[a] little bit less than a minute,” then told 

her to hurry up and get out of the shower. Soto admitted that he opened 

the shower curtain and saw the victim naked. The victim was 13 years old 

at the time.

¶4 Soto was charged with voyeurism stemming from this

shower incident. He was also charged with two counts of child molestation,

one count of sexual abuse, and an additional count of voyeurism, based on 

other alleged conduct with the victim. Soto was convicted of one count of 

voyeurism, but was acquitted of the remaining counts. The jury found 

 

1 The victim’s grandmother adopted the victim and her two siblings;

they refer to her as “mom.”
STATE v. SOTO

Decision of the Court

3

emotional harm to the victim as an aggravating circumstance, and the court 

suspended sentence and placed Soto on two years of supervised probation,

without sex offender terms. Soto timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d 

at 881. We find none.

¶6 Soto was present and represented by counsel at all stages of 

the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court 

afforded Soto all his rights under the United States and Arizona 

Constitutions and our statutes, and that the proceedings were conducted in 

accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court 

conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial 

and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The 

period of probation imposed falls within the range prescribed by law.

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

pertaining to Soto’s representation in this appeal will end after informing 

Soto of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s 

review reveals 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). Soto shall have 30 days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration

or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶8 Soto’s conviction and the imposition of probation are

affirmed.