State v. Aguilar Sanchez

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANTONIO PASQUAL AGUILAR SANCHEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0109
FILED 02-04-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-124791-001
The Honorable Kristin Culbertson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Emily Tyson-Jorgenson
Counsel for Appellee

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Antonio Pasqual Aguilar Sanchez appeals his conviction for
aggravated assault of a child under 15 years old. For the following reasons,
we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 We view the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding
the jury’s verdict. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 (2011). In July 2022,
Savanah (a pseudonym) and her mother (“Mother”) left their house to go
on a car ride. Savanah, who was 12 at the time, is autistic and nonverbal.
Mother’s father (“Grandfather”) was at the house that day and waited on
the front porch for Savanah and Mother to enter the car, which was parked
in the driveway.

¶3 Mother placed Savanah in the rear passenger-side seat and
started walking toward the driver seat. Grandfather, still on the front porch,
shouted for Mother to get into the car and lock the door because a stranger,
later identified as Aguilar Sanchez, was approaching Savanah’s door.
Aguilar Sanchez was holding an ice pick and screwdriver. A handkerchief
masked his face. Mother rushed into the driver’s seat and locked the door.
She caught a glimpse of Aguilar Sanchez just as he pulled on Savanah’s
door handle. Aguilar Sanchez then moved behind the car, blocking Mother
from backing out of the driveway.

¶4 Aguilar Sanchez then approached Grandfather, who was still
standing on the porch. Mother called 911 after Aguilar Sanchez started
stabbing the patio post with the ice pick and screwdriver. He returned to
the car, tapped on Savanah’s window with his tools, and attempted to open
her door. Savanah screamed when Aguilar Sanchez tried to open the car
door a second time. When the door did not open, he moved toward the
front of the car, allowing Mother to back into the street and drive away
towards police officers who had been dispatched to the scene.

2
 STATE v. AGUILAR SANCHEZ
Decision of the Court
¶5 Officers arrested Aguilar Sanchez without incident. Aguilar
Sanchez did not physically injure anyone and caused no property damage
aside from the pillar he stabbed with his screwdriver.

¶6 Aguilar Sanchez went to trial on three counts: two counts of
aggravated assault and one count of aggravated assault against a child
under 15. Mother, Grandfather, and the police officers who responded to
the 911 call testified. During the State’s case-in-chief, the jury heard
Mother’s recorded 911 call, which included Savanah screaming while
Aguilar Sanchez approached her car door and attempted to open it. But
Mother testified Savanah made those screams because she was impatient,
not in response to Aguilar Sanchez’s attempt to open the car door. Mother
also testified that Savanah’s autism prevented her from understanding the
danger she was in.

¶7 After the State rested its case, Aguilar Sanchez moved for
acquittal on the counts against Mother and Savanah under Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 20(a)(1), arguing the State presented
insufficient evidence that he behaved in a threatening manner toward them.
He also argued he could not have committed aggravated assault against
Savanah because she lacked the capacity to feel reasonable apprehension.
The court denied both motions, proceeded with the trial, and the jury
convicted Aguilar Sanchez as charged.

¶8 Aguilar Sanchez appeals and we have jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§
12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 On appeal, Aguilar Sanchez does not dispute his convictions
as to Mother and Grandfather. He argues only that the State presented
insufficient evidence as to the aggravated assault count against Savanah
and the superior court thus erred in denying his motion for a directed
verdict on that count. We review the superior court’s Rule 20 decision de
novo. State v. Thompson, 252 Ariz. 279, 301, ¶ 86 (2022).

¶10 “After the close of evidence on either side . . . the court must
enter a judgment of acquittal on any offense charged in an indictment . . . if
there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P.
20(a)(1). Substantial evidence is “such proof that reasonable persons could
accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of [the]
defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16
(cleaned up). Our role is to determine whether “any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

3
 STATE v. AGUILAR SANCHEZ
Decision of the Court
doubt.” State v. Parker, 231 Ariz. 391, 407, ¶ 70 (2013) (quoting Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The superior court must submit the case
to a jury when “reasonable minds may differ on inferences drawn from the
facts.” State v. Haywood, 257 Ariz. 445, 454, ¶ 35 (App. 2024).

¶11 The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Aguilar
Sanchez intentionally placed Savanah in reasonable apprehension of
imminent physical injury, (2) he used a deadly weapon or dangerous
instrument to aggravate the assault, and (3) Savanah was under the age of
15. A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(2), -1204(A)(2), -705(T)(1)(b).

¶12 “Either direct or circumstantial evidence may prove the
victim’s apprehension.” State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53, 66 (1994). The victim
need not “testify to actual fright or apprehension.” State v. Felix, 237 Ariz.
280, 289, ¶ 32 (App. 2015).

¶13 Aguilar Sanchez contends Mother’s testimony about
Savannah’s reaction demonstrates there was insufficient evidence to
support the conviction. He analogizes his case to State v. Baldenegro, 188
Ariz. 10 (App. 1996). In Baldenegro, we reversed the superior court’s denial
of a motion for directed verdict finding that the State presented insufficient
evidence of an alleged victim’s apprehension when he did not hear any
shots fired, did not see a gun pointed at him, and did not react to the
shooting. Id. at 13–14. Aguilar Sanchez’s analogy fails because he
incorrectly equates the conflicting evidence in this case with the complete
lack of evidence in Baldenegro. The jury heard Mother’s testimony regarding
Savanah’s screams but also heard the screams from Mother’s 911 call.
Despite Mother’s testimony, a reasonable jury could conclude from the
sounds on the 911 call that Aguilar Sanchez placed Savanah in reasonable
apprehension of imminent harm. See Felix, 237 Ariz. at 289, ¶ 32 (testimony
that 16-month-old child could hear gunshots and started crying in response
was sufficient to establish the child’s reasonable apprehension of physical
harm). The superior court did not err by denying Aguilar Sanchez’s Rule 20
motion.

4
 STATE v. AGUILAR SANCHEZ
Decision of the Court
CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm.

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

5