State v. Jimenez, 060220 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CR 19-0151

Docket Nº:1 CA-CR 19-0151
Opinion Judge:CATTANI, JUDGE.
Party Name:STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GILBERTO CRUZ JIMENEZ, Appellant.
Attorney:Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee. The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler By Adam M. Susser Counsel for Appellant
Judge Panel:Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.
Case Date:June 02, 2020
Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

GILBERTO CRUZ JIMENEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0151

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

June 2, 2020

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2016-109865-001 The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge.

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee.

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler By Adam M. Susser Counsel for Appellant

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

CATTANI, JUDGE.

¶1 Gilberto Cruz Jimenez appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of child molestation and two counts of sexual conduct with a minor. He argues that his confession to police officers should have been suppressed because it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his Miranda1 rights. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Jimenez lived with the victim and the victim's mother, with whom he was romantically involved, in various apartments from 2004 until the relationship ended in 2007. During this period, the victim was between about three and six years old. In 2014, the victim told her grandmother that Jimenez had sexual contact with her on multiple occasions while they were living together.

¶3 Later that year, the victim reported the sexual conduct to the police. After the victim spoke to a forensic interviewer, two officers went to Jimenez's place of work to speak with him. The officers arrived and entered an office, which was a double-wide mobile home on a large area of farmland, and informed two workers behind a counter that the officers needed to speak to Jimenez. The workers called for Jimenez and directed the officers to a room where they could speak with him.

¶4 Jimenez entered the office, and an officer asked Jimenez if he would speak with him. Jimenez did not verbally respond but followed the officers to the room. Once Jimenez and the officers entered the room, one of the officers informed Jimenez that he was not under arrest and began to question him.

¶5 The questioning began by going over biographical information to confirm Jimenez's identity. The officer then informed Jimenez of the victim's allegations and asked Jimenez whether he committed the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP