State v. Soto

── State v. Soto ── Case No.: 1 CA-CR 24-0296 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 19, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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