State v. Arias

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RAYMOND ALFRED ARIAS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0087
FILED 08-20-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-008241-001
The Honorable Joseph Shayne Kiefer, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Ortega & Ortega, PLLC, Phoenix
By Alane M. Ortega
Counsel for Appellant

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

STATE v. ARIAS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Raymond Alfred Arias appeals his conviction and
sentence for armed robbery in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1904(A)(1), a class
two felony. Arias’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising us he found no
arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for
fundamental error. Arias was given an opportunity to file a supplemental
brief but did not do so. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Arias. See State v.
Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 On May 30, 2022, around 3:30 a.m., Arias walked into a Circle
K convenience store, pointed a gun at the cashier, and demanded money
from the cash register. Fearing he may be shot, the cashier handed Arias
some cash. Arias then warned the cashier not to “call the cops” and left the
store. After locking the door, the cashier immediately called the police.

¶4 Officers responded and searched the area. They found Arias
“crouched down” behind a large electrical box, approximately 150 feet from
the Circle K. Inside the electrical box, officers found clothing matching the
cashier’s description what the suspect was wearing during the robbery. A
loaded handgun was found on top of the electrical box. A secondary search
of Arias’s person incident to his arrest revealed a bullet in the pocket of his
shorts, matching the type used in the handgun.

¶5 The cashier identified Arias, a regular visitor to the store, as
the perpetrator. He recognized Arias by his jacket, his build, the way he
walked, and despite the mask worn by Arias during the robbery, by what
the cashier “could see of [Arias’s] face.”

¶6 At trial, the State called the cashier to testify, along with
several police officers, two detectives, and a forensic scientist. The trial

2

STATE v. ARIAS
Decision of the Court

court admitted into evidence the store’s surveillance video and the officers’
body camera video. At the close of the State’s case-in-chief, Arias moved for
directed verdict under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The court
denied the motion.

¶7 The jury convicted Arias as charged. Additionally, the jury
found the State proved three aggravating circumstances beyond a
reasonable doubt: (1) the offense was dangerous, (2) the victim “suffered
physical, emotional, or financial harm,” and (3) the offense was committed
for pecuniary gain.

¶8 Finding several mitigating factors, including family support
and a recent death in Arias’s family, the trial court concluded the
aggravators and mitigators “offset each other.” The court sentenced Arias
to a presumptive term of 10.5 years’ imprisonment with credit for 449 days
of presentence incarceration. Arias timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶9 We review Arias’s conviction and sentence for fundamental
error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

¶10 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Insofar as the record reveals, Arias
was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present
at all critical stages including the entire trial, rendering of the verdict, and
sentencing. See State v. Connor, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at
critical stages) (citations omitted); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503
(1977) (right to be present at critical stages). The jury was properly
comprised of eight jurors, and the record shows no evidence of juror
misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a).

¶11 The trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of
the charged felony offense, the State’s burden of proof, and Arias’s
presumption of innocence. At the sentencing hearing, Arias was given an
opportunity to speak and the court stated on the record the factors it
considered in imposing the sentence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.
Additionally, the sentence imposed was within the statutory
limits. See A.R.S. § 13-704(A).

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm Arias’s conviction and sentence. Unless defense
counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme

3

STATE v. ARIAS
Decision of the Court

Court by petition for review, her obligations regarding Arias’s appeal will
end after informing him of the outcome of this appeal and his future
options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

¶13 Arias has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed,
if he desires, with an in propia persona petition for review to the Arizona
Supreme Court. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon this Court’s own motion, we
also grant Arias thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propia
persona motion for reconsideration. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3(a) (appellate court
may for good cause suspend any provision of Rule 31 and order
proceedings as it directs); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20(c) (allowing fifteen days to
move for reconsideration).

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

4