State v. Valdenegro, 1 CA-CR 16-0519

On Aug. 9, 2013, police contacted a silver Nissan Altima at a trailer park; Valdenegro exited the driver’s side and gave his brother’s name and birthdate.
Officer saw a handgun on the driver-side floorboard; Valdenegro denied ownership and driving the vehicle but had car keys and key fob on his person and his phone/charger were in the car.
A forensic scientist testified a major component of the handgun DNA profile matched Valdenegro; Valdenegro stipulated he was a prohibited possessor.
Indicted for misconduct involving weapons (A.R.S. § 13-3102) and false reporting to law enforcement (A.R.S. § 13-2907.01); jury tried the weapons count, court tried the false-reporting count.
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20 was denied; jury convicted on weapons, court convicted on false reporting.
Aggravation hearing found four aggravators; court found five prior felonies and sentenced to concurrent presumptive terms (10 years for weapons, 15 days for false reporting) with 254 days’ presentence credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for misconduct involving weapons	State: evidence (gun in driver-side floorboard, keys/fob on Valdenegro, phone in car, DNA match, stipulation of prohibited possessor) supports knowing possession	Valdenegro: argued insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly possessed the gun	Court: substantial evidence supported conviction; no reversible insufficiency error
Sufficiency of evidence for false reporting	State: officer testimony and Valdenegro’s admission that he gave his brother’s info show knowing false statement to mislead officer	Valdenegro: contested accuracy/intent of statements	Court: evidence established elements; conviction affirmed
Denial of Rule 20 judgment of acquittal	State: denial proper because evidence met substantial-evidence standard	Valdenegro: contended complete absence of probative facts warranted acquittal	Court: Rule 20 denial proper; substantial evidence existed
Sentencing and aggravation findings	State: aggravators and prior felonies supported presumptive sentence	Valdenegro: no successful challenge to procedural or statutory sentencing limits	Court: proceedings complied with rules; sentences within statutory range and affirmed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1970) (standards for counsel’s withdrawal when appeal lacks arguable merit)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (procedural requirement for counsel’s review and filing in Anders-type appeals)
State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336 (1993) (appellate review of Anders briefs and record for reversible error)
State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64 (1990) (definition of substantial evidence in criminal convictions)
State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186 (1996) (insufficiency-of-the-evidence reversible error standard)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s duties after concluding appeal lacks arguable issues; client notification and options)