State v. Avila-Lovato

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JUAN JOSEPH AVILA-LOVATO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0561
FILED 02-22-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-142743-001
The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. AVILA-LOVATO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

F U R U Y A, 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 defendant Juan Joseph
Avila-Lovato advised this court that he has found no arguable question of
law after searching the entire record and asks this court to conduct an
Anders review. Avila-Lovato was given the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief but did not do so. This court has reviewed counsel’s
brief and the record and has found no reversible error. Accordingly, Avila-
Lovato’s conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the
defendant.” State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) (internal
quotation omitted).

¶3 On November 13, 2021, law enforcement responded to an
incident between Avila-Lovato and a pizza delivery driver who claimed
Avila-Lovato had threatened him with a firearm. The delivery driver
identified Avila-Lovato to a law enforcement officer when Avila-Lovato
drove past them. Another officer pursued Avila-Lovato in a marked law
enforcement vehicle with his police lights and siren on. He reported Avila-
Lovato drove up to a speed of at least 80 miles per hour on city roads, ran a
red light during the chase, and at one point lost control of his vehicle. The
officer terminated the chase after being instructed to by his superior officer.
Law enforcement later apprehended Avila-Lovato at his residence.

¶4 The State charged Avila-Lovato with Count I, Aggravated
Assault, a Class 3 felony; and Count II, Unlawful Flight from Pursuing Law
Enforcement Vehicle, a Class 5 felony. See Arizona Revised Statutes
(“A.R.S.”) §§ 13-1204(A)(2), (F), 28-622.01. He was released to the
supervision of the Pretrial Services Division on November 14, 2021.

2
 STATE v. AVILA-LOVATO
Decision of the Court

¶5 Avila-Lovato testified at trial, admitting he fled from a
pursuing law enforcement vehicle because he was scared for his life. He
also admitted he knew the vehicle was marked as a law enforcement vehicle
and that its police lights and siren were on.

¶6 A jury found Avila-Lovato not guilty of Count I and guilty of
Count II. The court sentenced him to two years of supervised probation. See
A.R.S. § 13-902(A). It also imposed fines totaling $65 a month and
suspended his driver’s license. See A.R.S. § 28-3304. Avila-Lovato timely
appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶7 The record shows that Avila-Lovato was represented by
counsel at all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all
critical stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the
verdict. The sentence imposed was within statutory limits. The award of
presentence incarceration credit was accurate. And in all other respects,
from the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance
with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

CONCLUSION

¶8 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon,
104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
Accordingly, Avila-Lovato’s conviction and resulting sentence are
affirmed.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel is directed to inform
Avila-Lovato of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies
an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Avila-
Lovato shall have 30 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: TM
3