State v. Casas

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KRISTOPHER COLLEN CASAS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0334
FILED 01-22-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-002244-001
The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Kristopher Collen Casas appeals his aggravated
assault conviction and sentence. Casas’ counsel filed a brief in accordance
with 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, she found no
arguable questions of law. Counsel asks this court to search the record for
reversible error. Casas had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but
did not do so. Having reviewed the record, Casas’ conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This court views the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the conviction and resolves all reasonable inferences against
Casas. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). Casas and victim
A.P. were in a romantic relationship for a time in 2020. On December 30,
2020, A.P. and Casas met at a skate park in Maricopa County and went for
a hike.

¶3 The two argued during the hike. Casas yelled at A.P., grabbed
her by the throat, threw her to the ground and strangled her until she lost
consciousness. A.P. suffered multiple injuries. She told Glendale Police that
Casas: (1) strangled her; (2) pointed a gun near her feet and fired twice; (3)
walked her down a mountain that they hiked and back to her car; (4)
sexually assaulted her orally and vaginally and (5) injured her with a knife.

¶4 The State charged Casas with three counts of aggravated
assault (two Class 3 felonies and one Class 4 felony); one count of
kidnapping, a Class 2 felony; and two counts of sexual assault, Class 2
felonies. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) §§ 13-1204 (aggravated assault); 13-
1304 (kidnapping); 13-1406 (sexual assault) (2026).1 The State alleged all

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

2
 STATE v. CASAS
Decision of the Court

charges were domestic violence offenses. See A.R.S. § 13-3601(A)(6). Other
than the Class 4 aggravated assault charge, the State alleged the offenses
were dangerous offenses. See A.R.S. § 13-105(13).

¶5 The court held a nine-day trial with a 12-member jury. Ten
witnesses testified and more than 100 exhibits were admitted in evidence.
At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Casas moved for a judgment of
acquittal, which the court denied. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20. Casas elected not
to testify, as was his right.

¶6 The jury found Casas guilty of the Class 4 felony aggravated
assault, but acquitted him of all other counts. The jury found the conviction
was a domestic violence offense. The State had alleged as aggravating
circumstances: (1) the offense caused emotional harm, see A.R.S. § 13-
701(D)(9); (2) the offense caused physical harm, see A.R.S. § 13-701(D)(9)
and (3) A.P.’s age, see A.R.S. § 13-701(D)(27). The jury found the State
proved the offense caused physical harm, but had not proved the other
aggravating circumstances.

¶7 The parties stipulated before sentencing that Casas had one
prior felony conviction. The court sentenced Casas to a greater than
presumptive five year prison term, awarding him 783 days of presentence
incarceration credit. See A.R.S. § 13-712(B).

¶8 This court has jurisdiction over Casas’ timely appeal under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶9 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
reviewed the record for arguable issues of reversible error, and has found
none. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Casas all his
constitutional and statutory rights and that it conducted the proceedings in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Casas was
present and represented by counsel at all critical stages. The evidence
presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The jury was
properly composed and instructed, and there is no evidence of misconduct.
Casas’ sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit
given for presentence incarceration.

3
 STATE v. CASAS
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 Casas’ conviction and sentence are affirmed. Unless defense
counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme
Court by petition for review, her obligations regarding Casas’ appeal will
end after informing him of the outcome of this appeal and his future
options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Casas has 30 days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per
motion for reconsideration or a petition for review in the Arizona Supreme
Court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3(a), 31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

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

4