State v. Navarrete

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

OTONIEL N. NAVARRETE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0259
FILED 04-03-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2024-006233-001
The Honorable Kristin Culbertson, 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. NAVARRETE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Otoniel N. Navarrete appeals his conviction and sentence for
sexual conduct with a minor. After searching the record and finding no
arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Navarette’s counsel filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental
error. Navarrete had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did
not. After reviewing the record, we affirm Navarrete’s conviction and
sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view and thus recount the facts in the light most favorable
to sustaining the jury’s verdicts. State v. Nelson, 214 Ariz. 196, 196, ¶ 2 (App.
2007).

¶3 John1 moved in with Navarrete, his uncle, when he was
thirteen and lived with Navarrete until he was fifteen. While living with
Navarette, John woke up one night to Navarette performing oral sex on
him. John told his sister that night and grandmother the next morning.

¶4 A year after moving out of Navarette’s home, John reported
this incident to police, who then arrested Navarette. Navarrete was
charged with one count of molestation and two counts of sexual conduct
with a minor. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1410, -1405.

¶5 The superior court held an eight-day trial. John testified that
Navarette performed oral sex on him. John’s sister testified that John told
her about the incident that night and she even found Navarette still lying
in John’s bed afterwards. The jury found Navarrete guilty of one count of
sexual conduct with a minor, a class 6 felony when a victim is older than

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

2
 STATE v. NAVARRETE
Decision of the Court

fifteen, and acquitted Navarette of the two other counts. A.R.S. § 13-
1405(B).

¶6 The superior court initially sentenced Navarette to sixty days
in jail followed by ten years of supervised probation. But Navarette rejected
probation, so the court instead sentenced Navarette to the presumptive
term of one year in prison with two days of presentence credit. Navarette
was also required to register as a sex offender.

¶7 Navarrete timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. Ariz.
Const. art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find
none.

¶9 Navarette was present and represented by counsel at all
critical stages of the proceeding, except when counsel waived his presence.
The record reflects that the superior court afforded Navarette all his
constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were
conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence
presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support the
jury’s verdict. Navarette’s sentence is also within the range prescribed by
law. We find no error on this record.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm Navarette’s conviction and sentence. Defense
counsel’s obligations in this appeal will end once Navarette 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, Navarette 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
3