Court Opinion

ID: 9838177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 16:08:38.900408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:00.828112
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   HUGO MOLINA TORRES, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0495
                               FILED 9-5-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2021-112131-001
          The Honorable Monica S. Garfinkel, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Cory Engle
Counsel for Appellant
                        STATE v. MOLINA TORRES
                           Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

K I L E Y, Judge:

¶1             A jury convicted Hugo Molina Torres of Molestation of a
Child in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1410 and Sexual Conduct with a Minor in
violation of A.R.S. § 13-1405 based on events that occurred in early 2020,
when the victim (“Victim”) was eleven years old. Molina Torres appeals his
convictions and sentences pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738
(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). In his opening brief, counsel
for Molina Torres provides the requisite “detailed factual and procedural
history of the case, with citations to the record,” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530,
537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), states that he “has found no arguable question of law
that is not frivolous,” and asks this Court to search the record for
fundamental error. Molina Torres had the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief but did not do so. After reviewing the record, we affirm
Molina Torres’s convictions and sentences.

                  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            This Court’s obligation here “is to review the entire record for
reversible error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against”
the appellant. State v. Melendez, __ Ariz. __, 2023 WL 4728653 at *1, ¶ 1 (Ariz.
App. July 25, 2023) (cleaned up).

¶3            Viewed in this manner, the record shows that Victim’s
mother was in a long-term relationship with Molina Torres, who lived with
Victim, her mother, and her brother. One evening, Victim, her brother, and
Molina Torres were sitting on a bed at home watching a movie. After
Victim’s brother fell asleep, Molina Torres got up to use the bathroom.
When he returned, he lay down on the bed next to Victim. He began
touching and hugging her, then put his hand inside her pants and touched
her vagina. Uncomfortable with Molina Torres’s actions, Victim left the
room. Later that night, she went to her bedroom to sleep. Molina Torres
entered the room while she slept, and Victim awoke when he again put his
hands under her clothing and touched her vagina. Victim got up and left

                                        2
                       STATE v. MOLINA TORRES
                          Decision of the Court

her bedroom. Later that morning, Victim was sitting on the couch playing
Xbox with her brother when Molina Torres joined them, sitting next to
Victim. He took a blanket and placed it over himself and Victim, then took
Victim’s hand and placed it on his penis.

¶4             Victim kept quiet about Molina Torres’s actions for two weeks
before telling a school friend. The school counselor learned of Victim’s
disclosure and reported it to the school resource officer (the “SRO”) who,
in turn, notified the police. When interviewed by the police, Molina Torres
initially denied the accusations before admitting that he touched Victim’s
vagina twice.

¶5            At trial, Victim testified to the events described above. The
school counselor, the SRO, the investigating police officers, a forensic
interviewer, and an expert witness also testified, and the State presented
the videorecording of Molina Torres’s police interview. At the conclusion
of the State’s case, Defense counsel moved for a directed verdict under
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. After the court denied the motion,
Molina Torres testified, denying all of the allegations. After closing
arguments, the jury deliberated and returned verdicts of guilt on two of the
three counts.

¶6             After closing arguments, the jurors deliberated and returned
verdicts of guilty on Count 1, Molestation of a Child, and Count 3, Sexual
Conduct with a Minor, each a class 2 felony and a Dangerous Crime Against
Children under A.R.S. § 13-705. The jurors were unable to reach a
unanimous verdict on Count 2, Molestation of a Child, which was later
dismissed on the State’s motion. The trial court sentenced Molina Torres to
the presumptive sentence of 17 calendar years on Count 1 and a consecutive
life sentence on Count 3, with the possibility of community release after 35
years.

¶7           Molina Torres timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction
pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶8             The record reflects that Molina Torres was represented by
counsel at all stages of the criminal proceedings, that his constitutional and
statutory rights were honored, and that the proceedings were conducted in
accordance with applicable court rules. Further, the sentences imposed are
within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. § 13-705(C), (F). Having searched the

                                      3
                       STATE v. MOLINA TORRES
                          Decision of the Court

record for reversible error and finding none, we affirm Molina Torres’s
convictions and sentences.

¶9            Unless, upon further review, defense counsel discovers an
issue appropriate to raise with the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel’s
obligations in this appeal will end once counsel “inform[s] [Molina Torres]
of the status” of this appeal and his “future options.” See State v. Shattuck,
140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Molina Torres has 30 days from the date of this
decision to file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review in
propria persona.

                              CONCLUSION

¶10           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

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

                                        4