Court Opinion

ID: 9371559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 17:01:57.142259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:29.386452
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

             BAUDEL ALEJANDRO BERMUDEZ, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0009
                              FILED 2-16-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2015-106061-001
               The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Oliverson & Huss Law, PLLC, Tempe
By David Greenberg
Counsel for Appellant
                           STATE v. BERMUDEZ
                            Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1              Baudel Bermudez appeals his convictions and sentences for
two counts of child abuse. Bermudez’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Bermudez was
given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did
not do so. Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error,
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all
reasonable inferences against Bermudez, State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293
(1989). After reviewing the record, we affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            While Bermudez watched his two children one day in 2015,
his nine-week-old daughter sustained a head injury. Bermudez later stated
that the infant rolled off of a couch and that he accidentally dropped her in
the bathtub while bathing the children.

¶3            The day following the injury, the infant’s mother asked about
taking the infant to the emergency room. Bermudez assured her their
daughter was fine. But when the infant’s condition worsened, Bermudez
took the child to the emergency room himself.

¶4            Because of the severity of her injuries, the infant was
transferred to a pediatric hospital. The infant’s skull was severely
fractured, she had significant bleeding in her brain, and she had two
fractured ribs. Medical personnel suspected child abuse and contacted
police.

¶5            Detectives interviewed Bermudez several times. The State
charged Bermudez with two counts of child abuse; one count for the initial
injury and a second count for failing to seek medical care for several days.
The case was tried to a jury in 2021.

                                      2
                            STATE v. BERMUDEZ
                             Decision of the Court

¶6            At trial, the State called medical professionals and
biomechanical injury experts. They testified that the infant’s injuries were
not consistent with accidental falls, but instead resembled a scenario where
the infant’s head was slammed or crushed. Bermudez testified about his
version of events leading up to his daughter’s hospitalization. He also
presented his own expert witnesses affirming his account. The jury
convicted Bermudez as charged.

¶7             An aggravation phase of the trial followed. The mother
testified of her daughter’s present condition and ongoing challenges. The
jury saw the child, now six-years-old, in a wheelchair and unable to speak.
And though the jury found aggravating factors, the trial court sentenced
Bermudez to consecutive presumptive terms of 17 years’ imprisonment
after considering both aggravating and mitigating factors. A.R.S.
§ 13-705(P).1 Bermudez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article
6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

                                DISCUSSION

¶8               A review of the record confirms that all proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Bermudez was at all times represented by counsel and was present at all
critical stages of the proceedings, including the trial and the verdict. See
State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages);
see also State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical
stages). The jury appropriately consisted of twelve jurors, and the record
shows no evidence of jury misconduct. A.R.S. § 21-102(A); Ariz. R. Crim. P.
18.1(a). The trial court properly instructed the jury of Bermudez’s
presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the elements of
the charged offenses. At sentencing, Bermudez was given an opportunity
to speak, and 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. 26.9, 26.10. Additionally, the sentences imposed were within the
statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -709 (as applicable).

¶9            Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz.
at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any
prejudicial error.”).

1We cite to the current version of the statute, but note that the relevant
subsection at the time of sentencing was subsection N.

                                        3
                           STATE v. BERMUDEZ
                            Decision of the Court

                              CONCLUSION

¶10           We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and
find none; therefore, we affirm Bermudez’s convictions and sentences.

¶11           Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Bermudez’s
representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more
than inform Bermudez 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 this court’s motion, Bermudez has 30 days from
the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona
motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

                                        4