State v. Gonzalez

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GABRIEL CRUCIFIXIO GONZALEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0524
FILED 07-15-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202301125
The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Law Office of Stephanie K. Bond P.C., Tucson
By Stephanie K. Bond
Counsel for Appellant

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.
 STATE v. GONZALEZ
Decision of the Court

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Gabriel Crucifixio Gonzalez timely appealed under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following his convictions for aggravated
assault of a peace officer, a class 5 felony, and resisting arrest, a class 6
felony. Gonzalez’s counsel searched the record and advised this Court that
she found no arguable, non-frivolous question of law. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Gonzalez had the
opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

¶2 We must review the entire record for reversible error, Clark,
196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against
Gonzalez, see State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). Having
reviewed the record, we find no reversible error and affirm Gonzalez’s
convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 On October 6, 2023, Deputy Gunderson (a pseudonym) was
dispatched to conduct a welfare check on a woman lying on the ground
near a roadway in Kingman. The officer parked his marked patrol vehicle
outside of Gonzalez’s house to observe the woman and ensure she did not
go into the roadway. Gonzalez approached the vehicle and asked why the
officer was parked outside his home. The officer left his vehicle to speak
with Gonzalez, who then returned inside. Gonzalez later came back outside
with his wife, K.D., and both parties stood on the street outside the officer’s
driver’s side window, repeatedly tapping on the window and asking why
he was there. During this time, multiple cars veered into the oncoming
traffic lane to go around Gonzalez and K.D. The officer then exited his
vehicle to arrest Gonzalez for creating a hazard in the roadway.

¶4 While being handcuffed, Gonzalez tried to pull the officer
toward the front of the vehicle. As the officer pulled Gonzalez back toward
the rear of the vehicle, Gonzalez spun around and chest-butted him.
Fearing that Gonzalez was going to head-butt him, the officer pushed
Gonzalez away and took him to the ground, where he continued to resist
arrest. While on the ground, Gonzalez grabbed a K-9 leash wrapped around
the officer’s waist and refused to let go, demanded a supervisor, and told
K.D. to “get [the officer].” The officer’s body camera recorded this
encounter, which the State played for the jury.

¶5 The State charged Gonzalez with aggravated assault of a
police officer (Count 1), resisting arrest (Count 2), and obstructing a public

2
 STATE v. GONZALEZ
Decision of the Court

roadway (Count 3). After the State rested at trial, Gonzalez moved for
acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The court denied
the motion and allowed the case to go to the jury. The jury found Gonzalez
guilty of Counts 1 and 2 but not guilty of Count 3.

¶6 Before imposing Gonzalez’s sentence, the State presented
evidence of an alleged prior conviction. The court found the State proved
the prior felony conviction, sentenced Gonzalez as a category-one repetitive
offender, and imposed mitigated, concurrent terms of 6 months
imprisonment on both counts. The court explained this was a “factually
mitigated case,” because there was “no significant assault” and the officer
did not suffer any “significant injuries.” The court also considered
Gonzalez’s family support as a mitigating factor.

¶7 The court awarded Gonzalez 38 days of presentence
incarceration credit. This was one day too many. Gonzalez was initially
arrested on October 6, 2023, but was released on his own recognizance the
next day. He was taken into custody on July 30, 2024, following the jury’s
guilty verdicts and remained in custody until sentencing on September 3,
2024. Because the date of sentencing is not included in the calculation of
presentence incarceration credit, State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 246 (App.
1987), Gonzalez was only entitled to 37 days of credit. Despite this error,
“we will not correct sentencing errors that benefit a defendant, in the
context of his own appeal, absent a proper appeal or cross-appeal by the
state.” State v. Kinslow, 165 Ariz. 503, 507 (1990).

DISCUSSION

¶8 The record reflects that the superior court conducted all
proceedings in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
See State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz. App. 248, 251 (1976) (citing Ariz. R. Crim. P. 1.2).
Gonzalez was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the
proceedings. The record reveals sufficient evidence from which the jury
could determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Gonzalez was guilty of
the charged offenses. The court afforded Gonzalez the opportunity to speak
at sentencing, stated on the record the factors it considered in imposing his
sentence, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.10, and sentenced him within the statutory
guidelines, see A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -709.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law
and find none. We therefore affirm Gonzalez’s convictions and resulting
sentences. See State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300–01 (1969).

3
 STATE v. GONZALEZ
Decision of the Court

¶10 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Gonzalez’s
representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than
inform Gonzalez of the outcome of this appeal and his future options,
unless, upon review, counsel finds “an issue appropriate for submission”
to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On the Court’s own motion, Gonzalez has 30
days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per
motion for reconsideration. Gonzalez also has 30 days from the date of this
decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.

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

4