State v. Cota, 060220 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CR 18-0150
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CR 18-0150|
|Opinion Judge:||THUMMA, JUDGE|
|Party Name:||STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER COTA, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Casey D. Ball Counsel for Appellee The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Alison Stavris Counsel for Appellant|
|Judge Panel:||Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined.|
|Case Date:||June 02, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2016-001513-001 The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Casey D. Ball Counsel for Appellee
The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Alison Stavris Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
¶1 Joshua Cota appeals from his conviction and sentence for burglary in the second degree. Cota argues his right to a speedy trial was violated and that the superior court erroneously failed to find his lack of criminal history was a mitigating circumstance. Because Cota has shown no error, his conviction and sentence are affirmed.
FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In July 2014, the State charged Cota by indictment with five counts related to a sexual assault the previous month: (1) sexual assault, a Class 2 felony; (2) sexual abuse, a Class 5 felony; (3) aggravated assault, a Class 6 felony; (4) criminal trespass in the first degree, a Class 6 felony and (5) burglary in the second degree, a Class 3 felony. The case was designated as complex and over the next year and half, scheduled trial dates were continued several times. Until mid-January 2016, when trial was set for early March 2016, Cota did not object to continuances and waived time.
¶3 In February 2016, based on recently-acquired evidence regarding an additional victim, the State again presented the matter to the grand jury, seeking new charges. When the grand jury did not issue an indictment as to the additional victim, the State arranged for a second grand jury presentation.
¶4 Meanwhile, the State moved to continue the early March 2016 trial based on trial conflicts and possible additional charges against Cota. Cota objected, and the court denied the State's motion to continue. In early March 2016, on the date set for trial, the superior court granted the State's renewed motion to continue over Cota's objection, resetting trial for later that month.
¶5 The second grand jury presentment then resulted in a new indictment, charging Cota with different offenses against the victim named in the original indictment. This 2016 indictment charged Cota with: (1) burglary in the second degree, a Class 3 felony; (2) sexual abuse, a Class 5 felony; (3) sexual assault, a Class 2 felony and (4) two counts of attempt to commit sexual assault, Class 3 felonies. The State then moved to dismiss the 2014 indictment without prejudice, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 16.4(a),  and proceed on the 2016 indictment. Cota objected and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP