State v. Sanchez, 060220 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CR 19-0109

Docket Nº:1 CA-CR 19-0109
Opinion Judge:CATTANI, Judge:
Party Name:STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOE ARTHUR SANCHEZ, Appellant.
Attorney:Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Gracynthia Claw Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Kevin D. Heade 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.

JOE ARTHUR SANCHEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0109

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Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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. CR2017-151752-001 The Honorable Erin Otis, Judge Retired

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Gracynthia Claw Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Kevin D. Heade 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 Joe Arthur Sanchez appeals his convictions and sentences for misconduct involving weapons (prohibited possessor), resisting arrest, and possession of a dangerous drug. Sanchez contends that he was deprived of his right to counsel because he had an irreconcilable conflict and complete breakdown of communication with his appointed attorney. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In November 2017, Sanchez was arrested after shooting the victim in the leg. At Sanchez's initial appearance, the superior court found Sanchez indigent, appointed counsel, and set release conditions including a $75, 000 bond, electronic monitoring, and pretrial supervision.

¶3 Approximately three months later, Sanchez filed a pro se motion requesting a change of counsel. Sanchez explained that he wanted new counsel because he had not received all his relevant paperwork and counsel had not filed the motions Sanchez requested (specifically motions for bond reduction and change of counsel). The court granted Sanchez's request for new counsel but informed him that extraordinary circumstances would be required to justify a second change of counsel.

¶4 At the hearing in which the court granted Sanchez's request to change counsel, Sanchez sought a bond reduction. When asked to explain what changed circumstances warranted reconsideration of the bond amount, Sanchez explained that he believed his bond was excessive, he had not yet received all his paperwork from his attorney, he was previously kicked out of the judge's courtroom ten years ago, and the judge had sentenced his brother. The court did not rule on Sanchez's motion because there was no written motion on the docket. Sanchez's new counsel did not file a motion seeking a bond reduction, and Sanchez's prior motion never appeared on the docket.

¶5 Trial was set for May 30, 2018. Three weeks before the trial date, defense counsel indicated that although he was in the middle of another trial, he intended to interview witnesses and be ready for trial because Sanchez wished to proceed as soon as possible. A week before the scheduled trial date, Sanchez filed a second motion for new counsel. Then, just before trial was scheduled to begin, defense counsel filed a motion to continue because of scheduling conflicts. Sanchez individually objected to the continuance. The court inquired whether Sanchez's motion to have new counsel...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP