State v. Leyva-Nafarrate, 1 CA-CR 16-0422

In April 2015 a grand jury indicted Jesus Arnulfo Leyva-Nafarrate on multiple counts including two kidnappings, three aggravated assaults, first-degree burglary, and misconduct involving weapons; historical prior-felony allegations and aggravators were also filed.
Leyva pleaded guilty to one kidnapping count (other serious counts dismissed) and proceeded to trial on the remaining count of misconduct involving weapons.
Police stopped the vehicle Leyva drove; he lacked valid identification and was arrested. Officers performed an inventory search of the vehicle prior to towing and found a loaded handgun concealed beneath the center-console cupholder molding; one fingerprint on the gun matched Leyva and Leyva admitted the gun was his.
Detectives testified the car was towed after the inventory; Leyva later challenged at appeal that the vehicle was never actually towed and therefore the inventory search was a pretextual, unlawful search.
A jury convicted Leyva of misconduct involving weapons; the trial court found three prior convictions for enhancement, sentenced him to concurrent terms (15.75 years for kidnapping from the plea and 2.5 years for the weapons offense), and credited 431 days of presentence incarceration.
On appeal, counsel filed an Anders/Robbins brief finding no arguable issues; Leyva filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the towing/inventory-search claim. The court reviewed for fundamental error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of inventory search/towing	State: officers lawfully impounded vehicle and conducted a good-faith inventory search; evidence supports towing and search	Leyva: car was never actually towed so inventory search was a pretextual, unconstitutional search	Court: Inventory search valid; lawful possession existed under A.R.S. § 28-3511 and record supports that vehicle was towed; no fundamental error
Sufficiency of evidence	State: forensic and testimonial evidence (gun operational, fingerprint match, admission) supports conviction	Leyva: (raised no additional sufficiency challenge beyond search issue)	Court: Evidence was substantial and supports the verdict
Procedural and constitutional compliance	State: trial complied with constitutional/statutory rights and Rules of Criminal Procedure	Leyva: claimed errors in procedure via pro se supplemental brief (mostly the search/tow claim)	Court: Proceedings complied with rights; no reversible error found
Counsel obligations on appeal	State: Anders/Robbins procedure followed; counsel informed court no arguable issues	Leyva: entitled to be informed of options after counsel’s Anders brief	Court: Counsel’s appellate duties ended per Shattuck; Leyva has 30 days to seek reconsideration or petition for review

Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (1999) (standards for counsel filing appellate brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (appellate review following counsel’s no-issue brief)
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999) (court reviews entire record for fundamental reversible error)
State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43 (App. 2010) (inventory-search community-caretaking exception and validity criteria)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for fundamental error review)
State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62 (App. 1994) (viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s post-appeal duties after filing no-merit brief)