Court Opinion

ID: 9905005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 17:03:26.14718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:07.178956
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      ROBERTO JOSE SOTO, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0172
                               FILED 11-28-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2022-113606-001
               The Honorable Margaret LaBianca, 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. SOTO
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

F O S T E R, 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 Roberto Soto
found no arguable question of law and requests that this Court review the
record for fundamental error. Soto was convicted of two counts of
aggravated assault, a class three felony and one count of disorderly
conduct, a class six felony, all three were classified as dangerous and
repetitive offenses. Soto was given the opportunity to file a supplemental
brief in propria persona, but he 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, Soto’s convictions,
resulting prison sentences and restitution are affirmed.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            In this appeal, the facts are viewed in the light most favorable
to sustaining the judgment and this Court resolves all reasonable inferences
against Soto. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3            On April 15, 2022, Soto and a friend were walking at a train
station towards three people. Heated words were exchanged between the
friend and the victims (hereinafter, “V.B.” and “V.A.”). Soto then reached
for a knife on his right hip and approached V.A. showing the knife in his
hand. As Soto advanced, V.B. stood up in front of V.A., who was still seated.
Soto, who was within three to four feet of V.A. and V.B., lunged at them a
couple of times with the knife still in his hand. V.A. later stated that he
thought he was never going to see his daughter again.

¶4              Security guards on the platform at the time waived down a
nearby patrol car; the officer inside had also witnessed some of the events
and quickly detained Soto. While detaining Soto, the officer located a knife
in a sheath on the right side of Soto’s waistband. Following the altercation,
the officer spoke with V.A., V.B., and V.B.’s wife. Surveillance video from
the light rail station showed a man wearing a yellow shirt pull a knife from

                                       2
                              STATE v. SOTO
                            Decision of the Court

his waist and move towards three people. Soto was wearing a yellow shirt
when detained. Officers arrested Soto and charged him with two counts of
aggravated assault, class three dangerous and repetitive felonies, and one
count of disorderly conduct, a class six dangerous and repetitive felony.
Soto pled not guilty to the charges.

¶5           A jury trial started on January 11, 2023, and lasted three days.
The parties agreed to the jury instructions. Soto’s presence was waived
when his counsel discussed procedural issues with the State and court.
After evidence was presented, the jury returned a guilty verdict for the
charged offenses. Before sentencing, the State filed motions outlining prior
convictions and aggravating circumstances that would justify an increased
sentence should Soto be convicted. The parties conducted a trial as to the
aggravating circumstances, and the jury returned a guilty verdict as to eight
aggravating factors.

¶6            At sentencing, the court found Soto’s mental health issues to
be a mitigating factor. For the first aggravated assault conviction, the court
sentenced Soto to 12 years in the Department of Corrections, with credit for
358 days he had already spent in custody. On the second aggravated assault
charge, Soto was also sentenced to 12 years. On the disorderly conduct
charge, Soto was sentenced to 4.5 years. The trial court ordered the
sentences to run concurrently.

¶7             This Court has jurisdiction over Soto’s timely appeal pursuant
to Article 6, § 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031 and 13-4033(A).

                             DISCUSSION

¶8           Soto’s convictions and sentences are reviewed for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
After reviewing the record, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.

¶9            All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Arizona Rules of Evidence, and
constitutional requirements. Soto was represented by counsel at all critical
stages, and his presence was voluntarily waived during portions of the
proceedings. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1; State v. Fristoe, 135 Ariz. 25, 34 (App.
1982) (“a defendant may waive his right to be present at any proceeding by
voluntarily absenting himself from it”). The superior court permitted Soto
to speak at sentencing, stated the factors it had considered and imposed a
sentence within the statutory limits, with proper credit for time in custody.

                                       3
                              STATE v. SOTO
                            Decision of the Court

This Court declines to order briefing and affirms Soto’s convictions and
sentences.

¶10            Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Soto 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). Soto 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

¶11          For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms Soto’s
convictions and sentences.

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

                                         4