Court Opinion

ID: 9915055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 16:01:49.275781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:02.053731
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 JOSE PAZ SILVA CALDERON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0171
                               FILED 1-4-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2019-123066-001
                  The Honorable Kevin B. Wein, Judge

                                  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. SILVA CALDERON
                           Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1             Jose Paz Silva Calderon timely appealed in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
following his convictions for second-degree burglary, kidnapping (both
involving victim, Maria), and two counts of threating or intimidating
(involving victim Maria and Maria’s family, respectively). We use
pseudonyms to protect the victim’s identity. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(i).
Calderon had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do
so. Calderon’s counsel searched the record and found no arguable question
of law that is not frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Melendez, 256
Ariz. 14, 19, ¶ 1 (App. 2023).

¶2            We must “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 [Calderon].”
Melendez, 256 Ariz. at 19, ¶ 1 (cleaned up). Having reviewed the record, we
find no reversible error and affirm.

                  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3           Calderon and Maria were in a romantic relationship from
2018 to March 2019. After their break-up, Maria blocked Calderon’s phone
number, but he continued to call her from an unknown number.

¶4             In May 2019, Calderon broke into Maria’s home in the middle
of the night. Calderon awakened Maria after he turned on her bedroom
light, took her cellphone, and stood over her. Maria asked how he got inside
her house, and Calderon replied that he got a master key from the Mafia.
Maria told Calderon to leave but he refused and said “[y]ou’re going with
me.” Calderon then grabbed Maria by the hair and threw her back down
on the bed. Calderon said he had a knife and threatened that if Maria did
not go with him, he would have the Mafia kill her family.

¶5          Calderon forced Maria to leave with him and he drove her to
his home. Once inside, Calderon grabbed Maria by the hair, threw her

                                        2
                       STATE v. SILVA CALDERON
                          Decision of the Court

down on his bed, and told her to lay down. Maria pretended to sleep
because she was afraid of what Calderon might do to her. After Calderon
fell asleep, Maria walked outside and called her niece for a ride home.
Shortly after her niece arrived, Maria called the police.

¶6           At the police’s direction, Maria participated in a recorded
phone call to confront Calderon. During the confrontation call, Calderon
implied that he got a key to Maria’s house from the Mafia. He denied
having a knife but said he had a gun with him when he entered Maria’s
home. Calderon admitted Maria did not want to leave with him but he took
her anyway because “[he] wanted to be with [her].”

¶7            The State arrested Calderon an hour after the confrontation
call and charged him with attempt to commit sexual assault, burglary in the
second degree, kidnapping, and two counts of threatening or intimidating.

¶8            The superior court vacated the first trial on day two because
Calderon was medically unavailable to appear in court. During the second
trial, which lasted eight days, the State offered testimony from Maria,
responding officers, the lead detective, and an adult domestic violence
expert.

¶9             After the defense rested, Calderon moved for a Rule 20
acquittal as to all five counts. The superior court granted the Rule 20 Motion
as to Count 1, attempt to commit sexual assault, but denied the motion as
to Counts 2–5. The jury found Calderon guilty on all remaining counts. The
jury also found as an aggravating factor to Counts 2 and 3 that the offense
caused emotional harm to the victim.

¶10           Calderon moved for a new trial, which the superior court
denied, finding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. At the
separate sentencing trial, the court found both aggravating and mitigating
factors, and Calderon’s sentencing range was enhanced because of his two
historical prior felony convictions. Accordingly, the court sentenced
Calderon to concurrent prison terms of twelve years for kidnapping, ten
years for burglary in the second degree, and two six-month sentences for
threatening or intimidating. The court awarded him 1063 days presentence
incarceration credit.

                               DISCUSSION

¶11          The record reflects that all proceedings were conducted in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. See State v.
Gomez, 27 Ariz. App. 248, 251 (1976) (citing Ariz. R. Crim. P. 1.2). Calderon

                                      3
                      STATE v. SILVA CALDERON
                         Decision of the Court

was present for all critical proceedings and was represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings. The record reveals sufficient evidence from
which the jury could determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Calderon
was guilty of second-degree burglary, kidnapping, and threating or
intimidating Maria and her family. At sentencing, Calderon had an
opportunity to speak. The court stated on the record the evidence and
materials it considered and the factors it found in imposing the sentence.
See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.10. The superior court imposed sentences within the
statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -709.

                              CONCLUSION

¶12           We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law
and find none. We therefore affirm Calderon’s convictions and resulting
sentences. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300–01.

¶13            Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Calderon’s
representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than
inform Calderon of the outcome of this appeal and his future options,
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). On the court’s own motion, Calderon has thirty
days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per
motion for reconsideration. Calderon also has thirty days from the date of
this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.

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

                                       4