A Pima County man convicted by a jury in 2019 of taking another man’s cellphone at knifepoint was properly sentenced to 10.5 years in prison, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled this week.
Robert Jacob Garcia asked to use the other man’s cellphone to make a call back in February 2019. The man agreed, as he recognized Garcia from the neighborhood. But when Garcia’s own phone began ringing, the man asked for his phone back.
Court records show the man alleged Garcia then displayed a knife and demanded the man’s watch. The man complied, leaving his watch and cellphone with Garcia before running to a nearby business to call 911.
Garcia was located by Pima County Sheriff’s deputies a short time later and found to be in possession of his own phone, as well as a knife and the victim’s phone. He was convicted of one count of armed robbery and sentenced to prison for more than a decade.
On appeal, Garcia argued the trial judge committed an error by blocking the defense attorney from presenting evidence that the victim admitted to deputies that he had mental health issues and that he “felt really triggered” by his interaction with Garcia.
The judge also prohibited the defense from cross-examining the victim about those issues, despite Garcia’s argument that the man may have lied and as the sole witness the victim’s credibility “was the central factor to be weighed by the jury.”
A unanimous decision released by the court of appeals Wednesday acknowledged the vital role of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause but found no fault with the trial judge’s decision.
“Garcia argues the trial court violated his right to confront and cross-examine a witness when it precluded him from questioning [the victim] about statements [the victim] had made to the detective following the incident,” Chief Judge Garye Vasquez wrote in the appellate decision.
Vasquez added that the court of appeals will not disturb a trial court’s ruling absent a clear showing of prejudice.
“Garcia has cited no evidence or authority suggesting there is a connection between a person’s ‘strong reaction’ to being robbed and a tendency to lie. And, in any event, Garcia has not shown [the victim’s] passing reference to ‘anger issues’ makes it more likely his reaction to being robbed was any stronger than the average person’s would have been,” Vasquez wrote.
On appeal, Garcia also contended that mentioning the watch -which was never recovered- during the trial muddied the issue as to what item the jury believed was involved in the robbery. But the court of appeals rejected his argument, noting “even if [the victim] did not have a watch, that defense would not defeat the armed robbery charge because Garcia still kept [the victim’s] cell phone after producing his knife.”
“Garcia does not suggest the jury might have concluded he took the watch but not the cell phone,” Vasquez wrote, adding that robbery is committed when a person “threatens or uses force against any person with intent either to coerce surrender of property” and armed robbery simply requires a person to be armed with a deadly weapon in the course of committing a robbery.
“Because these individual acts constitute a single criminal transaction and do not create the risk of a non-unanimous verdict, Garcia cannot establish the existence of any error, let alone fundamental, prejudicial error,” Vasquez wrote. “Garcia’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.”
