State v. Palmares

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ESTEVANICO DOS QUILOMBO PALMARES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0244
FILED 04-08-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2015-108180-001
The Honorable Kevin B. Wein, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Zhivago Law, Phoenix
By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. PALMARES
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Estevanico Dos Quilombo Palmares (“Palmares”) appeals the
superior court’s revocation of his probation and its subsequent sentence.
Counsel for Palmares filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after diligently
searching the record, counsel found no arguable question of law that was
not frivolous. 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). Palmares was permitted to file a supplemental brief;
he did not do so. He instead filed a supplemental motion to dismiss the
charges that resulted in his probation being revoked. Having reviewed the
record, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2018, Palmares pled guilty to criminal damage. The
superior court sentenced him to supervised probation for three years.

¶3 In November 2019, Palmares’ probation officer petitioned the
court to revoke his probation for multiple violations and requested a
warrant for his arrest. Palmares denied the violations and the court set a
hearing. The court later revoked Palmares’ release, set a bond, and
continued the hearing.

¶4 In May 2020, Palmares was arrested for murdering two
people. The superior court continued the hearing pending resolution of
those charges. A jury convicted Palmares on two counts of second-degree
murder and one count of misconduct involving weapons. State v. Palmares, 2024 WL 4458253, at *1 ¶ 1 (Ariz. App. Oct. 10, 2024) (mem. decision). This
court affirmed those convictions on direct appeal. Id.

¶5 The superior court consolidated the probation disposition
hearing with the sentencing hearing for the separate convictions. See Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 27.8(e). At the sentencing and disposition hearing, Palmares,
through counsel, requested that his presence be waived—he did not want

2
 STATE v. PALMARES
Decision of the Court

to attend if the court would not consider his motions. The court expressed
skepticism that Palmares could waive his appearance. When Palmares
entered the courtroom during this discussion, he immediately began
yelling obscenities at the victims’ families and pulled away from the two
deputies restraining his arms. Three additional deputies “leapt up” to
assist before the court ordered he be temporarily removed. Palmares’
attorney then requested Palmares’ presence be waived based on
“courtroom safety concerns.” After lengthy discussion, the court brought
Palmares, bound to a wheelchair, into the courtroom to determine if he
“intend[ed] to disrupt the proceedings[.]”

¶6 After sentencing began, Palmares started interrupting and
when the court asked him to stop, Palmares repeatedly said that someone
would have to shoot him. The court ordered that if Palmares was to remain
in the courtroom, he would have to be gagged and so Palmares was
removed from the courtroom.

¶7 After briefly reviewing some exhibits, the court again
considered whether to proceed with Palmares in the courtroom. After
additional discussion, the court rescinded the order to gag Palmares, found
extraordinary circumstances, and required Palmares to watch the hearing
from a separate room. The hearing continued. After victim impact
statements, the court brought Palmares back into the courtroom and
allowed him to address the court. After Palmares did so, the court
sentenced him. Palmares began to interrupt again, but when the court
threatened to remove him, he agreed to let the court finish without
additional disruption.

¶8 The court found Palmares guilty of two counts of second-
degree murder and one count of misconduct involving weapons. After
sentencing Palmares for those convictions, the court revoked Palmares’
probation and sentenced him to one-and-a-half years in prison, with 41
days of pretrial incarceration credit.

¶9 Palmares timely appealed. We do not address Palmares’
supplemental motion to dismiss because it challenges separate convictions,
which this court previously affirmed. See id. at *2–4 ¶ 11–24. We do,
however, have jurisdiction over the revocation of his probation and
sentence for criminal damage. See A.R.S. § 13-4031; State v. Regenold, 226
Ariz. 378, 379 ¶ 1 (2011).

3
 STATE v. PALMARES
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶10 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.

¶11 Palmares was present and represented by counsel at all
critical stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects the
superior court afforded Palmares all his constitutional and statutory rights
and conducted the proceedings consistent with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Palmares was convicted of multiple felonies, see
Palmares, 2024 WL 4458253, at *1 ¶ 1, which supports the court’s decision to
revoke his probation. The sentence imposed was consistent with the terms
of Palmares’ plea agreement. We find no error on this record.

CONCLUSION

¶12 Palmares’ probation revocation and sentence are affirmed.
Defense counsel’s obligations in this appeal will end once Palmares is
informed of the outcome and his future options, unless counsel finds an
issue appropriate for the Arizona Supreme Court’s review. See State v.
Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Palmares
has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

4