State v. Marquez-Barraza

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SANTIAGO MARQUEZ-BARRAZA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0690 FILED 01-22-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2023-136412-001 The Honorable Max Covil, Judge AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee The Law Office of Kyle T. Green, Mesa By Kyle Green Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MARQUEZ-BARRAZA Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie1 and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Santiago Marquez-Barraza appeals his convictions and sentences for unlawful discharge of a firearm and disorderly conduct with a weapon. Marquez-Barraza’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Marquez-Barraza was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Marquez-Barraza’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 In August 2023, Marquez-Barraza and his wife, P.R., had an argument. P.R. called the police and told the operator that Marquez- Barraza had a gun. P.R. reported that Marquez-Barraza had pointed the gun at his stepdaughter and had fired a round into the ground.

¶3 Responding officers found a spent shell casing that matched a loaded firearm inside Marquez-Barraza’s nearby pickup truck. Marquez- Barraza told police he fired the gun. An officer stated that P.R. and her stepdaughter appeared to be distressed by the incident.

1 Judge Paul J. McMurdie was a sitting member of this court when the matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective December 31, 2025. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-145, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court designated Judge Paul J. McMurdie as a judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeals, Division One, for the purpose of participating in the resolution of cases assigned to this panel during his term in office.

STATE v. MARQUEZ-BARRAZA Decision of the Court ¶4 The State charged Marquez-Barraza with unlawful discharge of a firearm, a class 6 felony, and disorderly conduct, a class 6 felony.2 See A.R.S. §§ 13-3107, -2904(A)(6), (B). Marquez-Barraza testified at the jury trial, asserting that his wife had the gun and that it discharged while he reached for it. Marquez-Barraza testified that he told the police he fired the gun because he “wanted the whole problem to be over.” The jury found him guilty of the offenses listed above and found the offenses to be dangerous.

¶5 The court sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive 2.25- year terms of imprisonment, with credit for 51 days of presentence incarceration. See A.R.S. § 13-704(A). The court also imposed required fees and assessments.

¶6 Marquez-Barraza timely appealed.

DISCUSSION ¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; see also State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). We find none.

¶8 Marquez-Barraza was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Marquez-Barraza all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. Marquez-Barraza’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with sufficient credit for presentence incarceration.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Marquez-Barraza of the status of the appeal and of his future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, he finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See id. On the court’s own motion, Marquez-Barraza shall have 30 days from the

2 The original charges also included one count of misconduct involving weapons (prohibited possessor), see A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4), but this count was severed for trial and later dismissed without prejudice on the State’s motion.

STATE v. MARQUEZ-BARRAZA Decision of the Court date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION ¶10 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR