Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department C
June 27, 2013
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
MARVIN THOMPSON, Appellant.
Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-154262-001 The Honorable Roger E. Brodman, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorney for Appellant
SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Presiding Judge
¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Marvin Thompson asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Thompson was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. After reviewing the record, Thompson's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In October 2011, Thompson crossed Hayden Road on his bicycle, causing a driver to suddenly brake in order to avoid hitting Thompson. After witnessing the incident, Officer Galbraith turned on the overhead lights of her fully marked police vehicle and followed Thompson into a parking lot. Officer Galbraith, in uniform and on foot, approached Thompson and said she stopped him for obstructing a roadway. Officer Galbraith asked Thompson for identification.
¶3 Thompson denied obstructing the roadway, refused to provide his identification and asked if he was under arrest. Although Officer Galbraith stated that he was not under arrest at that moment, she directed Thompson to sit on the ground. Thompson did not follow that direction and rode away on his bicycle. Officer Galbraith then called for backup to search for Thompson.
¶4 A short time later, Officer Savage, who also was in uniform, located Thompson sitting in a nearby park, approached Thompson and ordered him to show his hands. Officer Galbraith then arrived and advised Thompson he was under arrest. Thompson frustrated the officers' efforts to handcuff him or place him in a compliance hold. Thompson then stood up and started to run away.
¶5 Officer Galbraith attempted to tase Thompson, but the taser was ineffective. Thompson continued running until intercepted by Officer Anderson, who was driving a marked police vehicle, at which time Thompson surrendered and was taken into custody.
¶6 Thompson was charged with (1) Obstructing a Highway or Other Public Thoroughfare, a Class 3 misdemeanor; (2) Failure to Comply with Police Officer, a Class 2 misdemeanor; and (3) Resisting Arrest, a Class 1 misdemeanor. Thompson waived any right he had to a jury trial. Scottsdale Police Officers Galbraith, Savage and Anderson as well as Thompson testified at trial. On Thompson's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case, the superior court acquitted Thompson on the obstruction charge. After considering all the evidence and argument, the court found Thompson guilty of failing to comply with a police officer and resisting arrest. The court sentenced Thompson to concurrent sentences of 12 months' unsupervised probation, 25 hours of community restitution and financial consequences, including a fine.
¶7 Thompson timely appealed his convictions and sentences. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 4033.
¶8 Counsel for Thompson advised this court that after a diligent search of the entire record, he found no arguable question of law. This court reviews Thompson's convictions and resulting sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 568, ¶ 22, 115 P.3d 601, 608 (2005). A full review of counsel's brief and the record reveals no reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. The record shows that Thompson was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the convictions. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits.
¶9 Thompson's convictions and sentences are affirmed. After this decision is filed, counsel's obligation to represent Thompson in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Thompson of the status of the appeal and Thompson's future options, unless counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Thompson may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
CONCURRING: MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge, LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Chief Judge