State v. Marquez-Barraza

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SANTIAGO MARQUEZ-BARRAZA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0690
FILED 01-22-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-136412-001
The Honorable Max Covil, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

The Law Office of Kyle T. Green, Mesa
By Kyle Green
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. MARQUEZ-BARRAZA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie1 and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Santiago Marquez-Barraza appeals his convictions and
sentences for unlawful discharge of a firearm and disorderly conduct with
a weapon. Marquez-Barraza’s 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, he found no
arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Marquez-Barraza was
given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v.
Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we
affirm Marquez-Barraza’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In August 2023, Marquez-Barraza and his wife, P.R., had an
argument. P.R. called the police and told the operator that Marquez-
Barraza had a gun. P.R. reported that Marquez-Barraza had pointed the
gun at his stepdaughter and had fired a round into the ground.

¶3 Responding officers found a spent shell casing that matched
a loaded firearm inside Marquez-Barraza’s nearby pickup truck. Marquez-
Barraza told police he fired the gun. An officer stated that P.R. and her
stepdaughter appeared to be distressed by the incident.

1 Judge Paul J. McMurdie was a sitting member of this court when the
matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective
December 31, 2025. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6,
Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-145, the Chief Justice
of the Arizona Supreme Court designated Judge Paul J. McMurdie as a
judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeals, Division One, for the purpose
of participating in the resolution of cases assigned to this panel during his
term in office.

2
 STATE v. MARQUEZ-BARRAZA
Decision of the Court

¶4 The State charged Marquez-Barraza with unlawful discharge
of a firearm, a class 6 felony, and disorderly conduct, a class 6 felony.2 See
A.R.S. §§ 13-3107, -2904(A)(6), (B). Marquez-Barraza testified at the jury
trial, asserting that his wife had the gun and that it discharged while he
reached for it. Marquez-Barraza testified that he told the police he fired the
gun because he “wanted the whole problem to be over.” The jury found
him guilty of the offenses listed above and found the offenses to be
dangerous.

¶5 The court sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive 2.25-
year terms of imprisonment, with credit for 51 days of presentence
incarceration. See A.R.S. § 13-704(A). The court also imposed required fees
and assessments.

¶6 Marquez-Barraza timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; see also
State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). We find none.

¶8 Marquez-Barraza was present and represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the
superior court afforded Marquez-Barraza 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 was
sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. Marquez-Barraza’s sentences fall
within the range prescribed by law, with sufficient credit for presentence
incarceration.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Marquez-Barraza of the status of the appeal and of his future options. See
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Counsel has no further
obligations unless, upon review, he finds an issue appropriate for
submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See id.
On the court’s own motion, Marquez-Barraza shall have 30 days from the

2 The original charges also included one count of misconduct
involving weapons (prohibited possessor), see A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4), but
this count was severed for trial and later dismissed without prejudice on
the State’s motion.

3
 STATE v. MARQUEZ-BARRAZA
Decision of the Court

date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for
reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.

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

4