NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

GUADALUPE FRANCISCO LOZANO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0667

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201000833

The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Kaiser James Wilson, PLLC, Flagstaff

By Jeffrey A. James

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. LOZANO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Guadalupe Francisco Lozano appeals the superior court’s 

order revoking probation and imposing consecutive, seven-year and threeyear prison sentences. Lozano’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, he found 

no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Lozano 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.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lozano pleaded guilty in 2011 

to one count of aggravated assault and one count of assisting a criminal 

street gang. The superior court suspended sentence and imposed five

years’ probation. The conditions of probation required, among other 

things, that Lozano maintain a crime-free lifestyle, report to the Adult 

Probation Department (“APD”) as directed, not change his place of 

residence without APD’s prior approval, participate in counseling or 

assistance programs as required by APD, and pay court-imposed fees.

¶3 In December 2011, Lozano’s probation officer filed a petition 

to revoke, alleging that Lozano had failed to maintain a crime-free lifestyle 

by participating in a criminal activity on November 30, 2011; failed to report 

to APD in violation of a November 30, 2011 written directive; changed his 

place of residence on or about December 13, 2011 without prior approval of 

his probation officer; failed to attend required Moral Recognition Therapy 

(“MRT”) sessions in violation of an October 19, 2011 written directive; and 

failed to pay $75 per month in court-imposed fees in violation of an October 

19, 2011 written directive. In January 2012, Lozano’s probation officer filed 

a supplemental petition to revoke, alleging that Lozano failed to maintain 

a crime-free lifestyle by committing new offenses on January 6, 2012, 
STATE v. LOZANO

Decision of the Court

3

including a drive-by shooting, aggravated assault, and assisting a criminal 

street gang. See State v. Lozano, CR-201200064 (Mohave Cnty. Super. Ct.).

¶4 In April 2013, Lozano proceeded to trial in CR-201200064, but 

the case was dismissed without prejudice after the jury was unable to reach 

a verdict. The parties subsequently stipulated that all testimony and 

exhibits from the jury trial in CR-201200064 could be admitted and 

considered as evidence in Lozano’s probation violation hearing. The court 

adopted the terms of the parties’ stipulation.

¶5 At the violation hearing, on the State’s motion, the superior 

court dismissed with prejudice the November 30, 2011 crime-free lifestyle 

allegation. The probation officer then testified that Lozano failed to (1) 

report to her as directed on December 8, 2011, (2) obtain prior approval 

from APD before changing his residence, (3) attend three required MRT 

counseling sessions on November 16, December 7, and December 14, 2011, 

and (4) make required payments to the clerk’s office after being employed. 

The court also considered trial testimony in CR-201200064 that Lozano fired 

multiple shots at the occupants of a motor vehicle in a gang-related 

shooting on January 6, 2012.

¶6 After considering the evidence, the superior court found that 

Lozano had violated the above-listed conditions of probation. The court 

revoked probation and imposed consecutive sentences of seven years’ 

imprisonment on the aggravated assault charge and three years’ 

imprisonment on the assisting a criminal street gang charge, with 957 days’ 

presentence incarceration credit.

¶7 Lozano timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 

6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033.1

DISCUSSION

¶8 The record reflects that the superior court afforded Lozano 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. Lozano was present and represented by 

counsel at all critical stages of the revocation proceedings. The court 

conducted appropriate hearings, and the evidence presented and 

summarized above was sufficient to support the court’s finding that Lozano 

 

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute’s 

current version.
STATE v. LOZANO

Decision of the Court

4

violated his conditions of probation. In light of these violations, the court 

was authorized to revoke probation and impose a sentence of 

imprisonment. See A.R.S. § 13-901(C). Lozano’s sentence falls within the 

range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence

incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the reasons stated, we affirm the superior court’s order 

revoking probation and imposing consecutive, seven-year and three-year 

prison sentences. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s 

obligations pertaining to Lozano’s representation in this appeal will end 

after informing Lozano of the outcome of this appeal and his future options. 

See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85, 684 P.2d 154, 156–57 (1984). 

Lozano has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, 

with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.