State v. Angsuco

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

CORNELIUS ANTHONY MEDINA ANGSUCO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0391
FILED 3-31-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR201800738
The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern, Chandler
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. ANGSUCO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Vice Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani
joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Cornelius Anthony Medina Angsuco1 appeals his convictions
for one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices and one count of forgery
of a credit card, class 2 and 4 felonies respectively, and the resulting
sentences. Angsuco’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a
diligent search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that
was not frivolous. Angsuco was allowed to file a supplemental brief but did
not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for arguable issues.
See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30
(App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Angsuco’s convictions
and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In May 2018, L.L. noticed several charges on her credit card
that she did not authorize. L.L. lived in South Carolina, but the charges
were made in various states, including New York, Texas, California,
Nevada, and Arizona. L.L. called the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office and
informed them that her card had been used in Fort Mohave at various retail
shops. Mohave County Deputy Sheriff John Wilson went to one of the
shops. Wilson learned that an Asian male with a blue hat and a silver
vehicle purchased gift cards and a candy bar. The manager allowed Wilson
to view a video recording of the transaction. Wilson then went to the other
retail store and received a similar description of the person attempting to
use L.L.’s card. Wilson also learned that the silver car had California license
plates.

1 On the court’s own motion, the caption in this matter has been
amended to correctly spell Angsuco’s last name. This amended caption
shall be used on any future filings.

2
 STATE v. ANGSUCO
Decision of the Court

¶3 L.L. again noticed her card was being used in Fort Mohave at
a pawn shop and contacted Wilson. Wilson, who was less than two miles
away from the pawnshop, drove to the store where he saw an Asian male
carrying a shotgun and a blonde female entering a silver car with California
plates. Wilson recognized Angsuco from the surveillance videos and took
him into custody.

¶4 Wilson then searched Angsuco and found ten gift and
prepaid credit cards and a cell phone. Wilson searched the car and found
sealed items from the retailers where the fraudulent charges were made.
These items included a receipt from a store containing L.L.’s credit card
number charged in the amount of $35.81.

¶5 The State charged Angsuco with one count of fraudulent
schemes and artifices, a class 2 felony, and one count of forgery of a credit
card, a class 4 felony. Angsuco pled not guilty to both charges. At numerous
pre-trial hearings, the parties discussed potential plea offers and the court
advised Angsuco of the charges and the potential consequences if found
guilty at trial. But Angsuco ultimately did not accept the State’s plea offer.

¶6 During the jury trial, L.L. testified that she did not live in
Arizona and did not authorize any of the charges made on her card by
Angsuco. Justine Murphey, the manager of one of the retail shops, testified
that she was working when Angsuco tried to buy various items using a
credit card and multiple gift cards. Alaina Gagliano, the manager of another
retail shop, testified that she saw Angsuco enter her retail store on the day
the card was attempted to be used, and Angsuco had previously bought
gift cards from that store on several other occasions. Wilson testified about
how credit card fraud occurs, including how people can take credit card
numbers and put them onto gift cards, creating false cards. Wilson also
testified concerning the circumstances surrounding his investigation and
Angsuco’s case. After the State’s case, Angsuco moved for a judgment of
acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, which the court
denied. Angsuco elected not to testify in his defense. The jurors found
Angsuco guilty as noted above.

¶7 At sentencing, the court suspended the imposition of the
sentences and placed Angsuco on three years’ probation. As a condition of
his probation, the court ordered that he serve 60 days in jail with three days’
presentence incarceration credit. Angsuco appealed, and we have
jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

3
 STATE v. ANGSUCO
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶8 We have read and considered Counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We
find none.

¶9 Angsuco was represented by counsel at all stages of the
proceedings against him. The record reflects the superior court afforded
Angsuco all his constitutional and statutory rights, and the proceedings
were conducted following the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
court held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial
and summarized above supports the jury’s verdicts. Angsuco’s sentences
fall within the range prescribed by law.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm Angsuco’s convictions and sentences. After the
filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Angsuco’s
representation in this appeal will end after informing Angsuco 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 a petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

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

4