State v. Flores, 1 CA-CR 16-0142

Victim (J.K.), an elderly woman, was attacked in her home in April 2013: assailant forced entry, restrained her, removed her clothing, and made repeated attempts to insert his penis into her vagina; some contact occurred though full penetration was contested.
Defendant was arrested in Sept. 2014 after DNA placed him at the scene; additional female DNA on victim matched defendant’s girlfriend.
Charges: second-degree burglary (count 1), kidnapping (count 2), and two counts of sexual assault (counts 3 and 4).
Jury convicted on all counts; defendant admitted being on probation and the victim’s age as an aggravator. Sentences imposed: concurrent terms for counts 1–3 and a consecutive term for count 4; presentence credit given on counts 1–3 but not on count 4.
Counsel filed an Anders brief; defendant filed a supplemental brief raising (1) a speedy-trial Rule 8 challenge based on nunc pro tunc excluded time and (2) a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to the sexual-assault convictions (penetration).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court violated Rule 8 / right to speedy trial by nunc pro tunc excluding 11 days	State: excluded time was properly treated as agreed continuance and/or not prejudicial	Flores: trial judge improperly excluded 11 days without his consent, extending the last-day-to-start and violating Rule 8	Court held no reversible error: counsel’s assent binds defendant; no prejudice shown; Rule 8 is procedural and defendant waited until after verdict to object
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove sexual intercourse (penetration) for counts 3 and 4	State: forensic injuries and nurse testimony constituted proof of at least slight penetration	Flores: no evidence of penetration, so acquittal required	Court held evidence sufficient: medical exam showed lacerations/abrasions consistent with crossing the plane of external lips; slight penetration standard met
Whether appellate counsel properly proceeded under Anders and whether fundamental error exists	State: Anders review appropriate; no fundamental error	Flores: raised supplemental issues but no reversible error	Court affirmed: Anders review found no fundamental error; convictions and sentences affirmed

Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (Anders procedure in Arizona)
State v. Spreitz, 190 Ariz. 129 (1997) (defense counsel’s continuance agreements bind defendant; Rule 8 is procedural)
State v. Vasko, 193 Ariz. 142 (App. 1998) (prejudice requirement for Rule 8 relief)
State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503 (App. 2005) (standard for reviewing denial of motion for acquittal under Rule 20)
State v. Torres, 105 Ariz. 361 (1970) (slight penetration suffices for intercourse/rape)
State v. McClure, 189 Ariz. 55 (App. 1997) (presentence incarceration credit rules)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s post-decision obligations following Anders disposition)