Court Opinion

ID: 9381624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 16:02:17.248564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.686360
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                  ALLEN JONATHAN MUNOZ, Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CR 22-0334
                                FILED 3-23-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR202100240
             The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

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

Jill L. Evans, Flagstaff
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. MUNOZ
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1             This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Allen Jonathan
Munoz has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, no
arguable question of law was identified and asks this court to conduct an
Anders review of the record. Munoz was given the opportunity to file a self-
represented supplemental brief, but has not done so. This court has
reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300;
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Accordingly, Munoz’
convictions of three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and resulting
prison sentences are affirmed.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            In early 2021, the victim, then 15-years-old, told her mother
than she had engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse with Munoz, then
31-years-old, in late 2020 in the vicinity of Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Her
mother contacted the police, who conducted a forensic interview with the
victim and arranged for a confrontation call between the victim and Munoz.
During the call, Munoz stated that he wanted to engage in further sexual
conduct with the victim. Munoz was arrested and charged with six counts
of sexual assault, Class 2 felonies, and six counts of sexual conduct with a
minor, Class 6 felonies.

¶3             At trial, the victim testified to the circumstances surrounding
each of the alleged incidents. The victim explained that the incidents started
when Munoz promised to help the victim get in contact with his brother.
Two police officers also testified to the circumstances around the
confrontation call as well as evidence obtained from Munoz’ cellphone.
After the State rested, Munoz successfully moved for judgment of acquittal
on four of the six counts of sexual assault. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20.

                                       2
                           STATE v. MUNOZ
                          Decision of the Court

¶4            Munoz then elected to testify, denying the accusations and
explaining that he was working during the confrontation call and did not
hear the victim clearly. Munoz’ mother also testified in Munoz’ defense
explaining that one of the alleged incidents could not have occurred
because the victim was helping her move things from her apartment at the
time and could not have been alone with Munoz. A 12-person jury found
Munoz guilty on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor, and not
guilty on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and two counts of
sexual assault. The jury also found that the victim had suffered physical,
emotional, or financial harm as to each of the guilty counts.

¶5            After considering a timely presentence report as well as
mitigating and aggravating factors, the court noted the aggravating
circumstance of physical, emotional, or financial harm found by the jury
and stated that “the aggravating circumstance controls.” The court
sentenced Munoz to the statutory maximum of 1.5 years for each of the
three sexual conduct with a minor convictions, to run consecutively. Munoz
was given credit for 63 days for the time he had already served in custody.

¶6           This court has jurisdiction over Munoz’ timely appeal
pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona
Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A) (2023).

                             DISCUSSION

¶7            The record shows that Munoz was represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical
stages. The court properly instructed the 12-person jury on the elements of
the charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof, Munoz’ presumption of
innocence and other applicable law. The record contains substantial
evidence supporting the verdict. The sentences imposed were within
statutory limits. The award of presentence incarceration credit was
accurate. And in all other respects, from the record presented, all
proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure.

                             CONCLUSION

¶8            This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon,
104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30. Accordingly, Munoz’
convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

                                    3
                             STATE v. MUNOZ
                            Decision of the Court

¶9             Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Munoz of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies
an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Munoz
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.

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

                                         4