State v. Zamora
1 CA-CR 16-0136
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- In June 2015 an officer stopped Antonio Zamora for riding a bicycle the wrong direction; an outstanding arrest warrant was discovered and Zamora was arrested.
- During a search incident to arrest, officers found a small plastic bag with a black tar-like, vinegar-scented substance in Zamora's wallet; lab testing confirmed heroin.
- Zamora was indicted for possession of a narcotic drug (class 4 felony); the State alleged he committed the offense while on probation and while on release for other felony matters and alleged prior felonies for sentence enhancement.
- A jury convicted Zamora; the aggravation phase found he was on probation and on release when the offense occurred; the court later found five prior felony convictions.
- The superior court initially sentenced Zamora to a 12-year flat term with 168 days presentence credit and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with two other cases; the court later vacated flat-time status to allow eligibility for early release credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of record / reversible error on conviction | State: conviction supported by evidence; proceedings regular | Zamora (via Anders brief): no meritorious issues raised; reserved right to pro se filings | No reversible error; conviction affirmed |
| Counsel appellate obligations under Anders/Leon | State: Anders brief properly complied with procedure | Zamora: no supplemental pro se brief filed | Court found counsel met obligations; advised defendant of post-decision options |
| Presentence incarceration credit calculation | State: clerk awarded 168 days | Zamora: actual custody from Aug 27, 2015 through Feb 11, 2016 equals 169 days inclusive | Court modified sentence to award 169 days' credit |
| Concurrent vs. consecutive service with other cases | State: court ordered concurrent sentences (but statute requires consecutive) | Zamora: ordered concurrent | Court noted error that sentence should be consecutive under A.R.S. §13-708(E) but declined to correct because State did not cross-appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel to file no-merit appellate brief)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (Ariz. 1969) (Arizona application of Anders procedure)
- State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999) (requirement to review entire record for reversible error)
- State v. Carnegie, 174 Ariz. 452 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) (presentence credit includes day of booking)
- State v. Piotrowski, 233 Ariz. 595 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) (sentence service under §13-708(E) must be consecutive to certain other sentences)
- State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278 (Ariz. 1990) (appellate court jurisdictional limits when State does not appeal)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (Ariz. 1984) (counsel's post-appeal duties to inform client of status and options)