Court Opinion

ID: 9892627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 17:07:54.046693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:08.551430
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

              HARONERE WILTRON ARREOLA, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0567
                               FILED 10-24-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                        No. S8015CR202000340
            The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler
By Janelle A. McEachern
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. ARREOLA
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in
which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1             This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Arreola
has advised this court that she has found no arguable questions of law and
asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Following a bench trial,
Arreola was convicted of theft and trafficking of stolen property, sentenced
to a term of 11 years’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay restitution. Having
been given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona,
Arreola has elected not to do so. After reviewing the record, we affirm his
convictions and sentences.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Arreola. See State v.
Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). Arreola is a member of the
Bulldogs, a California street gang, and uses the street name “Kaotic.” He
had served time in Soledad Prison for crimes committed in California. He
has a Facebook account where he uses his first and last name.

¶3             Kingman Turquoise is a family-owned business that deals in
all things turquoise. For over 60 years, the Colbaugh family has supervised
the mining, processing, and sale of raw and finished turquoise. Much of
their turquoise is pressed into bricks and sold to companies that then use
the turquoise in their products; other stones are processed into beads and
sold by the strand.

¶4             On the night of October 2, 2019, the business’s alarm
triggered. The Colbaughs rushed to their store, calling the police after
seeing their front door damaged. Upon surveying the damage, the owners
discovered that several five-gallon buckets full of turquoise bricks and
several turquoise bead strands were missing. Surveillance cameras showed
three people breaking down the door and making an organized run on the
wares. Their faces were not visible, covered by pulled-up hoodies or masks.

                                       2
                            STATE v. ARREOLA
                            Decision of the Court

The incident began and ended within three minutes, during which the
robbers took an estimated $82,500 worth of turquoise.

¶5            A few weeks later, a Facebook user going by the name “Kay
Will” posted some photos of turquoise to a Facebook page called “FB Rock
Shop.” In his post, Will claimed to have “acquired a variety of high-grade
turquoise through a private claim in Arizona,” and that anyone “serious
about purchasing” the turquoise “should contact [him] on Facebook.” One
of the Colbaughs’ acquaintances saw the post and brought it to the business
owners’ attention. From the photos in the post, the Colbaughs identified
Will’s wares as their stolen turquoise. They contacted the police for
investigation.

¶6            The police looked into Kay Will and found that the person in
the account’s profile picture and other photographs was, in fact, Arreola.
The police issued search warrants for both the Kay Will and Arreola
accounts. From the results of that search, the police concluded that Kay Will
was Arreola’s alias, and a grand jury subsequently indicted him for theft
and trafficking in stolen property.

¶7            Arreola waived his right to a jury trial, and stipulated that, if
convicted, he would face a sentencing range of 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment.
Arreola’s main defense was that the State could not prove that Will was in
fact Arreola and not an impostor. He moved in limine to preclude the use
of Kay Will’s Facebook posts and messages as hearsay. The State argued
that Arreola authored the posts and messages, making them party
admissions. The trial judge ruled that the State could present the Facebook
evidence, and that if he was unconvinced of Kay Will’s identity, he would
disregard the evidence as hearsay. Throughout the bench trial, Arreola
continued to renew his objection to the Facebook posts and messages but
was overruled.

¶8             At trial, the State used various evidence to show that Kay Will
and Arreola were the same person. In Will’s messages, he referred to
himself as “Chaotic” or “Chotic,” Arreola’s street name. He also referred to
“doing time” in Soledad Prison, and both accounts used Arreola’s pictures.
The State suggested a theory of the origin of Will’s name: “Kay” came from
“Kaotic,” and “Will” came from Wiltron, Arreola’s middle name. The State
also offered in evidence a July 2019 post of Will sharing a photo of a
California inmate card bearing the name Haronere Arreola. A friend
commented “Don’t go back,” to which Will replied “I won’t if u help me
stay out of trouble!!” The trial court found this “very compelling evidence
that in fact the defendant is Kay Will,” and found him guilty of theft in

                                      3
                            STATE v. ARREOLA
                            Decision of the Court

excess of $25,000, a class two felony, and trafficking of stolen property, a
class three felony.

¶9            At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found as aggravating
circumstances Arreola’s felony conviction within the previous 10 years,
motivation of pecuniary gain, and financial harm to the victim. The court
found as mitigating circumstances Arreola’s drug use and mental health
history. The court ultimately sentenced Arreola to aggravated, concurrent
terms of 11 years’ imprisonment for each offense, with 337 days’
presentence incarceration credit. The parties later stipulated that Arreola
would pay restitution for Kingman Turquoise’s insurance company’s loss.
Arreola timely appealed.

                                DISCUSSION

¶10            We review Arreola’s convictions and sentences for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
Counsel for Arreola has advised this court that after a diligent search of the
entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have read
and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible
error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
Arizona Rules of Evidence, and constitutional requirements. So far as the
record reveals, counsel represented Arreola at all stages of the proceedings,
and the sentences imposed complied with the statutory guidelines and the
parties’ earlier stipulation. We decline to order briefing and affirm Arreola’s
convictions and sentences.

¶11            Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Arreola of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no
further obligations 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 (1984). Arreola shall have 30 days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.

                               CONCLUSION

¶12           We affirm.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA
                                       4