State v. Maldonado

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

EDWARD MALDONADO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0092
FILED 02-20-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2019-001197-001
The Honorable Sam Myers, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Mercer Law PLC, Mesa
By Stephen Mercer
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. MALDONADO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding
Judge Jennifer B. Campbell1 and Judge Kent. E. Cattani joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Edward Maldonado appeals his convictions for sexual assault
and abuse and the resulting sentences. Maldonado’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, he found no
arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Maldonado 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 Maldonado’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In June 2014, Maldonado went drinking with friends and
happened to meet Inez and her friends at a bar.2 The group, including
Maldonado and Inez, eventually left for another bar in one car. While in the
backseat, Maldonado tried to kiss and grab Inez as she attempted to push
him away. He touched her breasts and moved his hands into her pants,
engaging in digital penetration. Inez’s friend switched places with her to
create distance between Inez and Maldonado. A few months later, Inez
reported the incident to the police.

¶3 The State indicted Maldonado on two counts: sexual assault,
a Class 2 felony, and sexual abuse, a Class 5 felony. During an August 2022
settlement conference, the State offered Maldonado a plea deal, which he

1 The Honorable Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge of the Court of Appeals,
Division One (Retired), is authorized by the Chief Justice of the Arizona
Supreme Court to participate in the disposition of this decision pursuant to
Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes §§ 12–145 to –147.

2 We use a pseudonym to protect the victim’s identity.

2
 STATE v. MALDONADO
Decision of the Court

rejected. The case was tried in September 2022, and the superior court
declared a mistrial because of a hung jury. The State then offered a second
plea deal. Maldonado rejected it, and the State advised him according to
State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 413, ¶ 14 (App. 2000).

¶4 At the second trial, Inez testified about Maldonado touching
her breast and digitally penetrating her in the car. Her friend testified that
she saw the sexual contact and switched places with Inez to prevent further
acts by Maldonado. Another victim testified that Maldonado also made
similar unwanted sexual contact with her. Maldonado testified that sexual
contact never occurred with Inez or the other victim.

¶5 The jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts, and the
court sentenced Maldonado to six years’ imprisonment for the sexual
assault conviction and placed him on supervised probation for ten years to
begin upon his physical release from prison for the sexual abuse conviction.
The court awarded Maldonado 31 days of pre-incarceration credit.
Maldonado appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9 of the
Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 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. Maldonado had no counsel present during his arraignment, but
he pled not guilty, and any potential error would be harmless. State v.
Morris, 215 Ariz. 324, 335, ¶ 44 (2007) (“An error is harmless if it appears
beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict
obtained.” (cleaned up)). Maldonado was present, waived his presence, or
represented by counsel at the remaining stages of the proceedings against
him. The record reflects the superior court afforded Maldonado all
constitutional and statutory rights and conducted the proceedings
following the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court held
appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and
summarized above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Maldonado’s sentences fall within the range and manner prescribed by law.
A.R.S. § 13-902(E); A.R.S. § 13-1404; A.R.S. § 13-1406. And the superior
court gave Maldonado appropriate presentence incarceration credit.

3
 STATE v. MALDONADO
Decision of the Court

¶7 Although Maldonado did not receive a formal Donald
advisement at the August 2022 settlement conference,3 the record still
reflects that he was aware of the plea offer and adequately informed of the
consequences before he rejected the plea offer. At the settlement conference,
the superior court informed Maldonado of the possible sentences he faced
if he was convicted at trial and the court’s discretion in awarding probation.
The court then compared the possible sentences to the plea offer from the
State. Maldonado responded, “I –– I understand what you’re saying, Judge.
We’ve been through this before . . . . I –– understand all of that. I understand
the risks.” Thus, failing to provide a Donald advisement is not an arguable
issue.

CONCLUSION

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

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3 See Donald, 198 Ariz. at 413, ¶ 14 (“[O]nce the State engages in plea
bargaining, the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to be adequately
informed of the consequences before deciding whether to accept or reject
the offer.”).

4