Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Daniel J. Kiley](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811142/state-v-soto/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Soto

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 24-0296

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by Daniel J. Kiley

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

LUIS HUMBERTO PEREZ SOTO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0296
FILED 03-19-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-138578-001
The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Ortega & Ortega, PLLC, Phoenix
By Alane M. Ortega
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

K I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 A jury convicted Luis Humberto Perez Soto of manslaughter
and he was sentenced to prison. This appeal is filed in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969). Soto’s counsel has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable
questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error.
Soto was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he has not done
so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Soto’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Soto. See State v.
Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 In the early evening of October 9, 2021, Soto was in his
apartment with several friends when they stepped outside and became
engaged in conversation with Soto’s neighbor and the neighbor’s friend,
K.G.V. An argument began that quickly escalated. When the confrontation
became physical, K.G.V. ran away and Soto, who was holding a knife, ran
after him. Two of Soto’s companions ran after K.G.V., too. A few minutes
later, Soto and his companions returned to the apartment.

¶4 Soto’s neighbor ran in the direction K.G.V. had fled, and
discovered him on the ground with several stab wounds. He called for help,
and someone called 911. Police responded to the scene. Some officers
attempted to render aid to the victim while others interviewed witnesses at
the scene. Several witnesses described how Soto and two companions had
chased K.G.V. and indicated that they had returned and gone into Soto’s
apartment. Officers went to Soto’s apartment. Seeing blood on the ground
outside, and unsure if someone in the apartment was injured, the officers
opened the unlocked door and entered the apartment to conduct a welfare
check. While in the apartment, they saw a bloody knife in the bathroom
sink.

2
STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court

¶5 The next day, an officer interviewed Soto. After being
informed of his Miranda rights1 and agreeing to speak with the officer, Soto
admitted that he got into a “physical fight” with K.G.V. and stabbed him,
adding that he was “extremely intoxicated when it occurred.”

¶6 Soto was arrested and charged with second-degree murder.
At trial, the State presented the testimony of eyewitnesses to the
confrontation, law enforcement officers who responded to the scene, the
investigating detective, and criminalists who analyzed the physical
evidence. Soto did not present any evidence.

¶7 The jury found Soto guilty of second-degree murder, but also
found that his actions were “the result of sudden quarrel or heat of passion”
reducing the conviction to manslaughter. The jury also found the State had
proven several aggravating factors under A.R.S. § 13-701(D), and that the
crime was dangerous under A.R.S. § 13-105(13). Soto was later sentenced to
15 years in prison.

¶8 Soto timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to
Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 We review Soto’s convictions and sentences for fundamental
error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). We have read
and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible
error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 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 Soto at all stages of the
proceedings, and the sentence imposed was statutorily authorized.

¶10 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Soto 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). Soto shall have thirty days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a motion for
reconsideration or petition for review filed in propria persona.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

3
STATE v. SOTO
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Soto’s conviction and
sentence.

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

4