State v. Mora

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STEVEN MORA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0192
FILED 1-26-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2018-000891-001
The Honorable Ronee F. Korbin Steiner, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Sharmila Roy Attorney at Law, Plainfield, IL
By Sharmila Roy
Counsel for Appellant

Steven Mora, Florence
Appellant
 STATE v. MORA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal from the superior court’s sentencing order 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.
The defendant, Steven Mora, was given the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief and did not do so. Our obligation is to review the
sentencing record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30
(App. 1999); State v. Smith, 171 Ariz. 501, 505 (App. 1992) (reviewing
sentencing order as an Anders appeal). We will not disturb a sentence
absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Ward, 200 Ariz. 387, 389, ¶ 5 (App.
2001).

¶2 As pertinent here, in 2018 a grand jury indicted Mora on two
counts of child molestation (counts one and two), and two counts of public
sexual indecency (counts five and six), alleging he committed the acts
against the victim on multiple occasions between October 12, 2007, and
October 11, 2009. A jury found Mora guilty on all four counts, and the
superior court found that he had two historical prior felony convictions
from Texas. The court then sentenced Mora to two consecutive life
sentences for counts one and two, and presumptive, concurrent five-year
sentences for counts five and six.

¶3 Mora timely appealed his sentences, arguing the superior
court erred in concluding that his prior convictions from Texas were
predicate felonies that compelled enhancement of his sentences to life in
prison. State v. Mora, 252 Ariz. 122, 124, ¶ 1 (App. 2021). We affirmed his
convictions and the sentences as to counts five and six. Id. at 129, ¶ 23. But
as to counts one and two, we vacated both life sentences after concluding
the Texas convictions could not serve as predicate felonies under A.R.S.
§ 13-705(I). Id. at 128–29, ¶ 21. We therefore remanded the case to the
superior court for re-sentencing on those counts. Id. at ¶¶ 22–23.

2
 STATE v. MORA
Decision of the Court

¶4 At the outset of the re-sentencing hearing, the superior court
informed the parties that it had reviewed an updated presentence report,
Mora’s sentencing memorandum and criminal history, the State’s
allegation of aggravating circumstances, and the orders entered when he
was originally sentenced. After the State presented evidence of Mora’s
prior convictions, it asked the court to impose the presumptive term on
both counts and argued the sentences must run consecutively under State
v. Brock, 248 Ariz. 583, 587, ¶ 2 (App. 2020) (holding that a defendant who
commits two counts of child molestation against the same victim must
receive consecutive sentences). Mora disagreed that Brock was applicable,
asserting that it was decided long after he committed these crimes and even
after his original sentencing. See id. Mora therefore asked the court to order
concurrent sentences.

¶5 The court then sentenced Mora to presumptive, consecutive
17-year sentences for counts one and two, and it ordered count one to run
consecutively to the sentences for counts five and six. The court explained
that consecutive sentences were justified, regardless of whether Brock was
controlling, because of the significant emotional harm to the victim,
including the presence and participation of an accomplice, and Mora’s
criminal history. See id. Mora timely appealed and we have jurisdiction
under A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1).

¶6 After a thorough review of the sentencing record, we find no
reversible error. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects Mora was
present and represented by counsel throughout the sentencing
proceedings. The sentences imposed fall within the ranges permitted by
law. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702, -705; Mora, 252 Ariz. at 129, ¶ 23. As far as the
record reveals, sentencing was conducted in compliance with the Arizona
Rules of Criminal Procedure and Mora’s constitutional and statutory rights.
Thus, we affirm Mora’s sentences on counts one and two.

¶7 Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be
appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, her obligations are
fulfilled once she informs Mora of the outcome of this appeal and his future

3
 STATE v. MORA
Decision of the Court

options. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Mora has 30 days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

4