State v. Pastrano

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ERIC L. PASTRANO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0588
FILED 06-30-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-120540-001
The Honorable Aryeh D. Schwartz, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Michael J. Dew, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant

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.

STATE v. PASTRANO
Decision of the Court

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Eric Pastrano
has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he has found
no arguable question of law and asks that the court conduct an Anders
review. Pastrano was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but
has not done so. This court has reviewed the record and has found no
reversible error. Accordingly, Pastrano’s convictions and resulting
sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This court views the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the convictions and resolves all reasonable inferences against
Pastrano. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). Pastrano and the
victim, P.C., were married for 12 years, but primarily lived apart.1 In April
2023, Pastrano began sending threatening texts and voicemails to P.C. He
then arrived at P.C.’s residence in Laveen, Arizona, yelling and banging on
her front and back doors, scaring P.C., but then left.

¶3 In May 2023, Pastrano broke into P.C.’s residence. Pastrano
wore body armor and had a gun. Pastrano yelled at P.C., shot at her, hit her
on the head with his gun, knocked her unconscious, and strangled her. P.C.
suffered various injuries. P.C. told Phoenix police officers that Pastrano
broke into her home, shot at her, pistol-whipped her, and choked her.

¶4 Police arrested Pastrano and seized his body armor and gun,
which did not have a serial number. Pastrano admitted he owned the items.

¶5 The State charged Pastrano with first degree burglary, a Class
2 felony (count 1); two counts of aggravated assault, Class 3 felonies (counts
2 and 3); possession of a weapon as a prohibited possessor, a Class 4 felony
(count 4); misconduct involving body armor, a Class 4 felony (count 5);
possession and use of a dangerous drug, a Class 4 felony (count 6);
possession of a defaced weapon, a Class 6 felony (count 7); criminal
damage, a Class 1 misdemeanor (count 8); threatening or intimidating, a
Class 1 misdemeanor (count 9); and first degree criminal trespass, a Class 1
misdemeanor (count 10). The court later severed Counts 4 and 6 and

1 Initials are used to protect the victim’s privacy. State v. Maldonado, 206

Ariz. 339, 341 n.1 ¶ 2 (App. 2003).

2

STATE v. PASTRANO
Decision of the Court

Pastrano pled guilty to Count 4 as amended and the State dismissed Count
6.

¶6 The State alleged that the burglary and aggravated assault
charges were dangerous offenses. See A.R.S. § 13-105(13). Other than the
criminal trespass charge, the State alleged that all the misdemeanor charges
were domestic violence offenses. See A.R.S. § 13-3601(A). The State also
alleged that the defendant was eligible for life in prison. See A.R.S. § 13-
706(B).

¶7 After various pretrial proceedings, in August 2024, the court
held an eight-day trial with a 12-member jury. Pastrano elected to testify in
his own defense, as is his right. During his testimony, Pastrano admitted
that he had been convicted of three prior felony offenses. The jury found
Pastrano guilty as charged and later found aggravating circumstances.

¶8 At sentencing, the parties stipulated to the admission of
evidence of Pastrano’s prior felony convictions. The superior court
considered the information and arguments presented, including Pastrano’s
criminal history. The court then sentenced Pastrano as a Category 3 non-
dangerous, repetitive offender to concurrent prison terms of three life
sentences for Counts 1, 2 and 3; an aggravated prison term of 15 years for
Counts 4 and 5 and an aggravated prison term of 5.75 years for Count 7, to
be served concurrently. For the misdemeanor convictions (Counts 8, 9, and
10), the court imposed 1 day in custody, with credit for time served.

¶9 This court has jurisdiction over Pastrano’s timely appeal
under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A) (2026).2

DISCUSSION

¶10 The record shows that Pastrano was represented by counsel
at all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical
stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The
sentences imposed were within statutory limits. In all other respects, from
the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with
the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

CONCLUSION

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

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3

STATE v. PASTRANO
Decision of the Court

¶11 This court has searched the record provided for reversible
error and has found none. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530,
537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Accordingly, Pastrano's convictions and resulting
sentences are affirmed.

¶12 Upon the filing of this decision, Pastrano’s counsel is directed
to inform him of the status of the appeal and his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds a legal
issue appropriate to submit to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Pastrano shall have
30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro
se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

4