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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
ALBERTO RIVAS, JR., Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CR 22-0259
FILED 3-2-2023
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2020-137557-001
The Honorable Michael C. Blair, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Thomas K. Baird
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. RIVAS
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass
joined.
B A I L E Y, 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 Alberto Rivas, Jr. filed a
brief advising this court that, after searching the entire record, he was
unable to discover any arguable question of law and requesting that this
court conduct an Anders review of the record. Rivas was given the
opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro per. Although he did not do so,
he raised three issues through counsel that we address. For the following
reasons, we affirm Rivas’s conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 On October 6, 2020, the State charged Rivas with aggravated
assault, a class three dangerous felony and a domestic violence offense. For
sentencing purposes, the State also alleged Rivas had five historical prior
felony convictions and other non-historical prior felony convictions.
¶3 Before trial, Rivas’s counsel raised concerns as to Rivas’s
competency to stand trial. Pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim. P., the
superior court ordered Rivas to be evaluated. After reviewing the results
of two medical evaluations, the court found that Rivas understood the
nature of the proceedings and the charges brought against him and was
thus competent to stand trial.
¶4 The State presented the following evidence at Rivas’s three-
day jury trial: One day in October 2020, the victim returned home in
Glendale from work and stepped out of his truck. Rivas approached the
victim, and the two began to argue about money. When the victim told
Rivas that he would not give Rivas any money, Rivas threatened to kill him
and picked up a kitchen knife. After telling Rivas to put the knife down,
the victim reentered his truck. Rivas then grabbed a saw, threatened to kill
the victim again, and struck the truck window several times with the saw.
The victim then drove his truck down the street to a neighbor’s house. The
2
STATE v. RIVAS
Decision of the Court
victim told the neighbor that Rivas wanted to hurt him and asked the
neighbor to call 911. Police officers soon arrived and arrested Rivas.
¶5 The jury found Rivas guilty as charged of one count of
aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument and determined the
domestic violence allegation proven. After finding that Rivas had at least
two non-dangerous prior felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him
to a minimum ten-year prison term, with 610 days of presentence
incarceration credit. Rivas filed a timely notice of appeal. We have
jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -
4033(A).
DISCUSSION
¶6 In his supplemental brief, Rivas raised three issues through
counsel. First, he asserts the jurors were “being offered payment through a
commissary fund.” The record does not reveal any evidence of improper
payments made to the jury. Jurors lawfully receive nominal compensation
for their service, see A.R.S. § 21-221, they are not paid based on their verdict
or any other result, see A.R.S. § 13-2808, and the record does not reveal any
evidence of jury tampering or misconduct. Rivas has shown no error.
¶7 Second, Rivas claims that the person identified as the victim
at trial “was someone from a television news show.” Rivas appears to claim
that the prosecution’s testifying victim was someone other than the actual
victim. However, no record evidence supports this claim. At trial, the
testifying victim identified himself by name and Rivas neither objected nor
made any effort to develop this issue on cross-examination. Rivas has
shown no error, much less reversible error.
¶8 Third, Rivas argues insufficient evidence supported his
conviction. In addressing a sufficiency of the evidence argument, we do
not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. See State v. Clark, 249
Ariz. 528, 534, ¶ 21 (2020) (citation omitted). Instead, we determine whether
substantial evidence supports the verdict, see id., while viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to affirming, id. at 531, ¶ 3 (citation
omitted). The record reflects substantial evidence to support the verdict, as
summarized above.
¶9 We have searched the entire record for reversible error and
find none. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (1999). Rivas was
represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and counsel was
present at all critical stages. All proceedings were conducted in compliance
3
STATE v. RIVAS
Decision of the Court
with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rivas’s constitutional
and statutory rights. The superior court permitted Rivas to speak at
sentencing and imposed a sentence within the statutory limits, with proper
credit given for presentence incarceration.
CONCLUSION
¶10 For all the reasons stated above, we affirm Rivas’s conviction
and sentence. Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is instructed to
inform Rivas of the status of his appeal and of 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). Rivas will have
thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro
per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA
4