State v. Garso

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LIANA KALICO GARSO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0475
FILED 5-14-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR 2017-002894-002
The Honorable Jacki Ireland, Judge Pro Tem

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Michael O’Toole
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Defender, Phoenix
By Cynthia D. Beck
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. GARSO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Defense counsel
has searched the record on appeal and advised us there are no meritorious
grounds for reversal. Garso was given the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief but did not do so. Our obligation is to review the entire
record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999),
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the
conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Garso, State v.
Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989).

BACKGROUND

¶2 In January 2016, Garso and her then-husband went to Fast
Auto Loans with a title to a Lincoln Navigator to obtain a title loan. The title
to the Navigator was in the name of Garso and her brother-in-law. Garso
completed the application and requested a loan in her name only for
$15,000. She presented the Navigator title as a security. An employee of Fast
Auto Loans verified the title to the vehicle was clear, obtained approval
from his manager, and issued a check to Garso for $15,000.

¶3 The repayment of the loan was set to begin ten days later with
an interest rate of 121.63 percent. Garso cashed the check and gave $15,000
to her husband.

¶4 Garso never made any payment on the loan. Fast Auto Loans
attempted to call Garso multiple times, but only reached her two or three
times over a three-year period. During the last contact in 2019, Garso
informed Fast Auto Loans that she was unemployed, did not have the
vehicle, and could not make the loan repayments. Fast Auto Loans
attempted to locate and repossess the Navigator but was unsuccessful.

¶5 After receiving a report from Fast Auto Loans, Detective
Bruno of the Chandler Police Department began searching for the
Navigator. He determined the title had been “washed,” which meant

2
 STATE v. GARSO
Decision of the Court

something may have been “altered” on the title. Detective Bruno also found
that another loan company had repossessed the vehicle based on a prior
loan.

¶6 The State charged Garso with theft, a class 3 felony.1 Garso
took the stand to explain that her husband was responsible for paying all of
their bills. She believed her husband was making payments on the loan,
until Fast Auto Loans contacted her. She also denied any knowledge about
the defect on the vehicle title.

¶7 After trial, a jury found Garso guilty of theft. The superior
court suspended the imposition of sentence, placing Garso on supervised
probation for a term of three years. Garso timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶8 After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible
error. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects Garso was present and
represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. The evidence
presented supports the conviction, and the sentence imposed falls within
the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, these proceedings
were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure and Garso’s constitutional and statutory rights. Therefore, we
affirm Garso’s conviction and sentence.

¶9 Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be
appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, her obligations are
fulfilled once she informs Garso of the outcome of this appeal and her
future options. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Garso has 30
days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with a pro per
motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

1 The State also alleged one count of forgery, a class 4 felony. The jury
found Garso not guilty on this count, and the State did not appeal that
ruling.

3