State v. Urenda
1 CA-CR 16-0862
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- In September 2014 Appellant Santiago Urenda confronted his former girlfriend’s boyfriend (Victim) outside the girlfriend’s mother's house and fired multiple rounds into Victim’s pickup truck. Victim and the girlfriend called police.
- A grand jury indicted Urenda on Counts I (aggravated assault), II (discharge of a firearm at a structure), III (misconduct involving weapons), and IV (unlawful discharge of a firearm).
- The court severed Count III for separate disposition; trial proceeded on Counts I, II, and IV. A jury convicted Urenda on Counts I, II, and IV and found weapon-use/dangerous-instrument allegations true and that Counts I and II caused emotional or financial harm.
- Urenda later pled guilty to Count III and admitted a prior felony. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms (six years on Counts I and II; 2.25 years on Count IV) and three years’ probation to follow release for Count III; 107 days’ presentence credit was awarded.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Robbins brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues; the court reviewed the record for fundamental error. Urenda did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions | Evidence (victim testimony, physical damage to truck, eyewitness account) supports the convictions | Urenda argued no meritorious grounds in appellate counsel’s brief; no pro se challenge raised | The Court found the evidence substantial and sufficient to support the verdicts; no reversible error |
| Fundamental error review (Anders/Robbins procedure) | Appellate counsel complied with Anders/Robbins; Court should conduct full record review for reversible error | Urenda raised no pro se issues after being allowed to file; no additional errors identified | Court conducted full review under Leon/Clark and found no reversible error |
| Ineffective assistance or procedural violations during trial/sentencing | State: counsel provided effective representation; procedures followed; Urenda had opportunity to speak at sentencing | Urenda did not raise specific ineffective-assistance claims on appeal | Court found representation and proceedings complied with constitutional and statutory rights |
| Appealability of plea-based Count (Count III) | State: plea to Count III limits direct appeal of that count | Urenda: no direct appeal available (not argued on appeal) | Court noted A.R.S. § 13-4033(B) bars appeal from convictions entered pursuant to plea agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (Anders-type appellate brief standards)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures when counsel finds appeal frivolous)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (appellate record review for reversible error)
- State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (duty of appellate court to review record for fundamental error)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 684 P.2d 154 (counsel’s obligations after filing Anders-type brief)
- State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 887 P.2d 592 (viewing facts in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)