State v. Cardona

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DANIEL FERNANDEZ CARDONA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0111
FILED 11-10-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-145527-001
The Honorable Pamela Hearn Dunne, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Zhivago Law PLLC, Phoenix
By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago
Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. CARDONA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Vice Chief Judge David D.
Weinzweig joined.

F A B I A N, Judge:

¶1 Daniel Fernandez Cardona appeals his conviction and
sentence for sexual conduct with a minor. Counsel for Cardona has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State
v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and has advised us that she has found no
arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for reversible
error. Cardona was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he
has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Cardona’s conviction
and sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On November 20, 2022, Cardona was staying at a family
residence where he was hired to do yard work. Living at the residence was
a twelve-year old child, her mother, aunt, cousins, and six siblings. Early
that morning, while asleep on the couch, the twelve-year-old victim awoke
to Cardona touching her genitals and rubbing his fingers back and forth
under her clothing and underwear. Disgusted and “weirded out,” she
immediately told her mother.

¶3 Upon hearing this news, the mother encountered Cardona on
the stairs to her bedroom; he denied wrongdoing while swinging a claw
hammer at her. Family members forced him out of the house, and a physical
altercation ensued. Cardona sustained injuries and was transported to the
hospital.

¶4 Police subsequently interviewed Cardona at the hospital.
Cardona stated that a fourteen-year-old in the home had approached him,
complimented him on his tattoos, and touched him on the leg. He then told
the police officer that he had been aroused in the night, to a female
manipulating his penis, and when he went to pursue her, he touched her
hair and realized it was the twelve-year-old victim. He told her he “can’t be
doing that” and walked away.

2

STATE v. CARDONA
Decision of the Court

¶5 The victim was examined by a sexual assault nurse examiner.
The nurse examiner testified that the victim stated she had been touched in
the vestibule region of the vagina which would constitute penetration of
the vulva.

¶6 A grand jury indicted Cardona for sexual conduct with a
minor and sexual abuse. At trial, the victim, the victim’s mother, the nurse
examiner, and several police officers testified. Cardona moved for a
judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 for
both counts. The trial court granted the motion for the count of sexual
abuse, determining the State had not presented sufficient evidence for that
count, but denied the motion for the count of sexual conduct with a minor.
The jury convicted Cardona of sexual conduct with a minor and found both
penetration and masturbatory conduct occurred.

¶7 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in
compliance with Cardona’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 26. The court sentenced Cardona to life in prison with
the possibility of release after 35 years, with 837 days of presentence
incarceration credit. The court imposed a $500 sexual assault assessment,
$250 sex offender registration fee, $20 probation assessment, $20 time
payment fee, $13 criminal penalty assessment, $9 victim compensation fund
fee, and $2 victim rights enforcement assessment, due in the event Cardona
is released from prison.

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review the entire record for reversible error. State v.
Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Counsel for Cardona has advised
us that she found no arguable questions of law after a diligent search of the
entire record. We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully
reviewed the record for reversible error, see id., and find none. All of the
proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, counsel represented
Cardona at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was
within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing and affirm
Cardona’s conviction and sentence. See id. at 46 ¶ 6.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Cardona of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has
no further obligations 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). This Court, of its

3

STATE v. CARDONA
Decision of the Court

own accord, grants Cardona thirty days from the date of this decision to
proceed, if he desires, in propria persona with a motion for reconsideration.
See 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). Cardona
may petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review no later than thirty
days after the date of this decision or, if Cardona files a timely motion for
reconsideration, no later than fifteen days after the motion is decided. See
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21(b)(2)(A).

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.

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

4