State v. Ramirez-Vazquez

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
DOVERCINER RAMIREZ-VAZQUEZ, Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CR 21-0553
FILED 4-13-2023
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2018-126488-001
The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee
Law Office of Stephen M. Johnson, Inc., Phoenix
By Stephen M. Johnson
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
P A T O N, Judge:
¶1 Doverciner Ramirez-Vasquez appeals his convictions for
sexual abuse, molestation of a child, kidnapping, and sexual conduct with
a minor. Ramirez-Vasquez’s counsel has advised us that in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297(1969), counsel has diligently searched the record and found no arguable
question of law that was not frivolous. Counsel asks this court to search the
record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App.
1999). Ramirez-Vasquez declined the opportunity to file a supplemental
brief pro se. After reviewing the record, we affirm Ramirez-Vasquez’s
convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In 2018, Ramirez-Vasquez’s 14-year-old biological niece told
her parents that Ramirez-Vasquez had sexually abused her a few months
prior. Later that day, two of Ramirez-Vasquez’s biological daughters
disclosed that he had also sexually abused them for a period of years when
they were around the age of 12.
¶3 Ramirez-Vasquez was arrested the following afternoon. A
forensic nurse examined the children and discovered that Ramirez-
Vasquez’s 12-year-old daughter was pregnant. The child gave birth to a
stillborn baby. The State presented DNA evidence that Ramirez-Vasquez
was the baby’s father.
¶4 The State indicted Ramirez-Vasquez on twenty-six counts:
eight counts of sexual abuse, class three felonies and dangerous crimes
against children; four counts of molestation of a child, class two felonies
and dangerous crimes against children; one count of kidnapping, a class
two felony and a dangerous crime against children; eleven counts of sexual
conduct with a minor, class two felonies and dangerous crimes against
children; one count of attempted molestation of a child, a class three felony
and dangerous crime against children; and one count of attempt to commit
2
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ
Decision of the Court
sexual conduct with a minor, a class three felony and dangerous crime
against children. Before trial, the State dismissed three counts of
molestation and one count of sexual abuse.
¶5 The case was tried over seven days in August 2021. The court
empaneled twelve jurors, with three alternates. One juror and one alternate
were released during trial.
¶6 At the pretrial conference held on the first day of trial,
Ramirez-Vasquez requested new counsel and refused to assist his attorney.
His court-appointed counsel moved to withdraw. The court denied the
motion. Ramirez-Vasquez then addressed the court, claiming that his
family had hired counsel, naming an attorney. The court noted the lack of
any notice of appearance by the purported new counsel and denied the
motion again.
¶7 The court then asked Ramirez-Vasquez whether he wanted to
be present for trial. He refused to answer the question, and so the court
found that he wanted to be present. The court then inquired as to whether
he wanted to be present in street clothes or in a Sheriff’s Department orange
jumpsuit. Ramirez-Vasquez declined to answer. Between the morning and
afternoon sessions of court, Ramirez-Vasquez conducted himself in such a
manner that the court found he waived his appearance, and his counsel did
not object to this finding. The court ordered Ramirez-Vasquez to be
transported to court each day so that he could choose to participate in his
trial if he wanted to. Ramirez-Vasquez subsequently waived his own
appearance for all or part of each day of trial through his behavior in court,
interjecting in open court despite being instructed not to, and claiming
illness, which the court did not find credible.
¶8 On the seventh day of trial, the State rested and dismissed
four counts of sexual conduct with a minor and two counts of sexual abuse.
The court inquired whether Ramirez-Vasquez wanted to testify. The court
warned him that he would not be permitted to make a speech to the jury
detailing his grievances, and that his counsel and the State would both have
an opportunity to question him. The court then asked whether Ramirez-
Vasquez understood these procedural constraints. Rather than reply
directly, Ramirez-Vasquez asked to speak, and said he would comply after
the court heard what he said. After Ramirez-Vasquez spoke, raising his
motion for change of counsel again, the court denied the motion and asked
whether he wished to testify. Ramirez-Vasquez stated he would not testify
unless his motion for new counsel was granted, and the court found that he
was choosing not to testify. The defense rested.
3
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ
Decision of the Court
¶9 The jury found Ramirez-Vasquez guilty on all remaining
counts: five counts of sexual abuse, two counts of molestation of a child, six
counts of sexual conduct with a minor, one count of kidnapping, one count
of attempted molestation, and one count of attempted sexual conduct. The
court sentenced him to the presumptive term on all counts:
Count Charge Statute Sentence
1 Sexual Abuse A.R.S. §§ 13- 5 years
(Minor under 1404; 13-705(H)
15)
3 Kidnapping A.R.S. §§ 13- 17 years
(Minor under 1304; 13-705(F)
15)
7 Sexual Abuse A.R.S. §§ 13- 5 years
(Minor under 1404; 13-705(H)
15)
8 Sexual Conduct A.R.S. §§ 13- 20 years
(Minor 13 or 14 1405; 13-705(E)
years)
9 Sexual Abuse A.R.S. §§ 13- 5 years
(Minor under 1404; 13-705(H)
15)
10 Attempted A.R.S. § 13- 10 years
Molestation of 1410(A); 13-
Child 705(M), (R)
11 Sexual Abuse A.R.S. §§ 13- 5 years
(Minor under 1404; 13-705(H)
15)
12 Sexual Conduct A.R.S. §§ 13- Natural Life
(Minor 12 years) 1405; 13-705(C) Imprisonment
13 Sexual Abuse A.R.S. §§ 13- 5 years
(Minor under 1404; 13-705(H)
15)
4
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ
Decision of the Court
15 Sexual Conduct A.R.S. §§ 13- Natural Life
(Minor 12 years) 1405; 13-705(C) Imprisonment
16 Sexual Conduct A.R.S. §§ 13- Natural Life
(Minor 12 years) 1405; 13-705(C) Imprisonment
17 Sexual Conduct A.R.S. §§ 13- Natural Life
(Minor 12 years) 1405; 13-705(C) Imprisonment
23 Sexual Conduct A.R.S. §§ 13- Natural Life
(Minor younger 1405; 13-705(C) Imprisonment
than 12)
24 Molestation of a A.R.S. §§ 13- 17 years
Child 1410; 13-705(F)
25 Attempted A.R.S. §§ 13- 10 years
Sexual Conduct 1405; 13-705(M),
(Minor under (R)
12)
26 Molestation of a A.R.S. §§ 13- 17 years
Child 1410; 13-705(F)
¶10 The court ordered all counts to run consecutive for a total of
116 years and five natural life sentences. The court awarded him 1,284 days
of presentence incarceration credit.
¶11 Ramirez-Vasquez filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
¶12 We have reviewed and considered counsel’s brief and
searched the record for reversible error. See Clark, 196 Ariz. at, 537, ¶ 30
(providing guidelines for briefs when counsel has determined no arguable
issues to appeal). We have found no reversible error. The record contains
sufficient evidence from which the jury could determine, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Ramirez-Vasquez was guilty of the aforementioned
crimes. The record reflects he was represented by counsel at all stages of
the proceedings and counsel was present at all critical stages. All
proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure and the sentences imposed were within the statutory
limit.
5
STATE v. RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION
¶13 For these reasons, we affirm Ramirez-Vasquez’s convictions
and sentences. Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed
to inform Ramirez-Vasquez of the status of his appeal and his future
options. Defense 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). Ramirez-Vasquez shall have thirty 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: JT
6