State v. Cardona

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. DANIEL FERNANDEZ CARDONA, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0111 FILED 11-10-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2022-145527-001 The Honorable Pamela Hearn Dunne, Judge (Retired) AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee Zhivago Law PLLC, Phoenix By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. CARDONA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 Daniel Fernandez Cardona appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual conduct with a minor. Counsel for Cardona has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and has advised us that she has found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for reversible error. Cardona was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Cardona’s conviction and sentence. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 On November 20, 2022, Cardona was staying at a family residence where he was hired to do yard work. Living at the residence was a twelve-year old child, her mother, aunt, cousins, and six siblings. Early that morning, while asleep on the couch, the twelve-year-old victim awoke to Cardona touching her genitals and rubbing his fingers back and forth under her clothing and underwear. Disgusted and “weirded out,” she immediately told her mother. ¶3 Upon hearing this news, the mother encountered Cardona on the stairs to her bedroom; he denied wrongdoing while swinging a claw hammer at her. Family members forced him out of the house, and a physical altercation ensued. Cardona sustained injuries and was transported to the hospital. ¶4 Police subsequently interviewed Cardona at the hospital. Cardona stated that a fourteen-year-old in the home had approached him, complimented him on his tattoos, and touched him on the leg. He then told the police officer that he had been aroused in the night, to a female manipulating his penis, and when he went to pursue her, he touched her hair and realized it was the twelve-year-old victim. He told her he “can’t be doing that” and walked away. 2  STATE v. CARDONA Decision of the Court ¶5 The victim was examined by a sexual assault nurse examiner. The nurse examiner testified that the victim stated she had been touched in the vestibule region of the vagina which would constitute penetration of the vulva. ¶6 A grand jury indicted Cardona for sexual conduct with a minor and sexual abuse. At trial, the victim, the victim’s mother, the nurse examiner, and several police officers testified. Cardona moved for a judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 for both counts. The trial court granted the motion for the count of sexual abuse, determining the State had not presented sufficient evidence for that count, but denied the motion for the count of sexual conduct with a minor. The jury convicted Cardona of sexual conduct with a minor and found both penetration and masturbatory conduct occurred. ¶7 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Cardona’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. The court sentenced Cardona to life in prison with the possibility of release after 35 years, with 837 days of presentence incarceration credit. The court imposed a $500 sexual assault assessment, $250 sex offender registration fee, $20 probation assessment, $20 time payment fee, $13 criminal penalty assessment, $9 victim compensation fund fee, and $2 victim rights enforcement assessment, due in the event Cardona is released from prison. DISCUSSION ¶8 We review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012). Counsel for Cardona has advised us that she found no arguable questions of law after a diligent search of the entire record. We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see id., and find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, counsel represented Cardona at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing and affirm Cardona’s conviction and sentence. See id. at 46 ¶ 6. ¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Cardona of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). This Court, of its 3  STATE v. CARDONA Decision of the Court own accord, grants Cardona thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, in propria persona with a motion for reconsideration. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3(a) (appellate court may for good cause suspend any provision of Rule 31 and order proceedings as it directs); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20(c) (allowing fifteen days to move for reconsideration). Cardona may petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review no later than thirty days after the date of this decision or, if Cardona files a timely motion for reconsideration, no later than fifteen days after the motion is decided. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21(b)(2)(A). CONCLUSION ¶10 We affirm. MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR 4