Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0112
01-24-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ RICHTER, Appellant.
COUNSEL The Hopkins Law Office, P.C., Tucson By Cedric Martin Hopkins Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the superior court in Pima county
No. CR20135144001
The Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
The Hopkins Law Office, P.C., Tucson
By Cedric Martin Hopkins
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Miller concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Fernando Richter was convicted of three counts of kidnapping, domestic violence offenses and dangerous crimes against children; two counts of aggravated assault, domestic violence offenses and dangerous crimes against children; and three counts of child abuse, domestic violence offenses. The trial court sentenced him to enhanced, "slightly mitigated" and minimum, concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling fifty-eight years. Counsel has filed a brief relying on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal, and asking us to search the record for fundamental error. Richter has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that for a period of years, including three months in the home where they were ultimately found, Richter forced his three step-children to stay in their rooms, only occasionally allowing them out, watching and primarily communicating with them through the use of cameras. They did not attend school, and Richter limited their water consumption, bathroom use, and contact with each other; rarely allowed them to bathe; denied them hygiene products; and struck them with a stick, "belt and a metal spoon" or wire if they disobeyed him. On the night they were discovered, two of the children had fled the house after Richter broke the door of their room while
attempting to enter and holding a knife. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702, 13-705, 13-1204(A)(2), (D), 13-1304, 13-3601, 13-3623(B)(1).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Richter's convictions and sentences are therefore affirmed.