State v. Arias-Luna
1 CA-CR 17-0139
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- On March 16, 2014, bystander Alejandro Vasquez observed Clemente Arias‑Luna rubbing his foot on a 12‑year‑old girl (I.X.)’s genitals through an apartment window and photographed the conduct.
- Vasquez and a neighbor reported the incident to Phoenix Police; Arias‑Luna was contacted, gave false names, and was arrested that night.
- Arias‑Luna was indicted on two counts of sexual conduct with a minor (one penetration count later resulted in acquittal), one count of child molestation, and one count of false reporting to law enforcement; he pled not guilty.
- After pretrial counsel changes and a jury trial, Arias‑Luna was convicted of masturbatory sexual conduct with a minor (Class 2 felony), child molestation (Class 2 felony), and false reporting (Class 1 misdemeanor).
- The superior court sentenced him to consecutive presumptive prison terms (20 years and 17 years) and awarded 1,073 days’ presentence incarceration credit; time served was credited on the misdemeanor.
- On appeal under Anders/Leon review, the court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentence to reflect 1,079 days’ presentence incarceration credit (sentencing date change).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | State: testimony and photos supported convictions | Arias‑Luna: (no arguable issue raised in Anders brief) | Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed |
| Waiver/change of counsel procedures | State: court respected rights and procedures | Arias‑Luna: sought counsel changes and waiver at different times | Court afforded constitutional/statutory rights; no reversible error |
| Presentence incarceration credit amount | State: credit per presentence report (1,073 days) | Arias‑Luna: entitled to credit through actual sentencing date (1,079 days) | Modify sentence to 1,079 days’ credit |
| Trial/counsel error (Anders review) | State: record shows no meritorious issues | Arias‑Luna: no supplemental brief filed | No arguable issues found; counsel discharged after advising client of options |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes appellate counsel’s duty to file a brief showing case is frivolous and request for court review)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (appellate-court review required when counsel files a no-merit brief)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (state-level procedure for no‑arguable‑issue Anders‑type briefs)
- State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (clarifies appellate counsel’s obligations under Anders/Leon)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (procedural requirements for counsel’s duties to defendant after appeal)