State v. Soto ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                      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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    HECTOR ERNESTO SOTO, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 14-0417
    FILED 8-11-2015
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2013-000423-001
    The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Law Office of Nicole Farnum, Phoenix
    By Nicole T. Farnum
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. SOTO
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in
    which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
    C A T T A N I, Judge:
    ¶1            Hector Soto appeals his conviction of voyeurism, a class 5
    felony, and the resulting imposition of probation. Soto’s counsel filed a
    brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), and State
    v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
    , 
    451 P.2d 878
     (1969), certifying that, after a diligent
    search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not
    frivolous. Soto was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but
    did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible
    error. See State v. Clark, 
    196 Ariz. 530
    , 537, ¶ 30, 
    2 P.3d 89
    , 96 (App. 1999).
    After reviewing the record, we affirm Soto’s conviction and the imposition
    of probation.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2           Soto and the victim’s grandmother1 had a relationship on and
    off beginning in 1998. Soto became a father figure to the victim and her
    siblings.
    ¶3            In April 2011, Soto was looking after the victim and her
    siblings at their grandmother’s house. While the victim was taking a
    shower, Soto entered the bathroom, opened the shower curtain and “looked
    [the victim] up and down” for “[a] little bit less than a minute,” then told
    her to hurry up and get out of the shower. Soto admitted that he opened
    the shower curtain and saw the victim naked. The victim was 13 years old
    at the time.
    ¶4            Soto was charged with voyeurism stemming from this
    shower incident. He was also charged with two counts of child molestation,
    one count of sexual abuse, and an additional count of voyeurism, based on
    other alleged conduct with the victim. Soto was convicted of one count of
    voyeurism, but was acquitted of the remaining counts. The jury found
    1      The victim’s grandmother adopted the victim and her two siblings;
    they refer to her as “mom.”
    2
    STATE v. SOTO
    Decision of the Court
    emotional harm to the victim as an aggravating circumstance, and the court
    suspended sentence and placed Soto on two years of supervised probation,
    without sex offender terms. Soto timely appealed.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶5            We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
    reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 
    104 Ariz. at 300
    , 
    451 P.2d at 881
    . We find none.
    ¶6           Soto was present and represented by counsel at all stages of
    the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court
    afforded Soto all his rights under the United States and Arizona
    Constitutions and our statutes, and that the proceedings were conducted in
    accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court
    conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial
    and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The
    period of probation imposed falls within the range prescribed by law.
    ¶7             After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations
    pertaining to Soto’s representation in this appeal will end after informing
    Soto of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s
    review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme
    Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    , 584–85, 
    684 P.2d 154
    , 156–57 (1984). Soto 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.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶8            Soto’s conviction and the imposition of probation are
    affirmed.
    :RT
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 14-0417

Filed Date: 8/11/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/11/2015