State v. Hedgecock

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GLEN JOSE HEDGECOCK, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0116

FILED 12-12-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR202201497
The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

The Zickerman Law Office PLLC, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. HEDGECOCK
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe
joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Glen Jose Hedgecock (“Hedgecock”) appeals his conviction
and sentence for theft of means of transportation. Counsel for Hedgecock
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after diligently searching the record,
counsel found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
Hedgecock was permitted to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. See
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Counsel asks this court to
search the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 79
(1988); Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30. After independently reviewing the
record, we affirm Hedgecock’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On November 30, 2022, Arizona Department of Public Safety
troopers received an alert on their in-car license plate reader that a stolen
vehicle had passed. The troopers followed the vehicle into a parking lot.
Hedgecock, the driver, exited and walked away from the vehicle while
looking down at his phone. The troopers arrested Hedgecock and, after
advising him of his Miranda rights, asked how he came into possession of
the vehicle. Hedgecock stated he picked the vehicle up earlier that day from
someone named Jessica. When further questioned, Hedgecock stated
someone named Ericka gave him the vehicle. Neither name matched that
of the vehicle’s owner. Hedgecock did not provide contact information for
either person or the location where he was given the vehicle.

¶3 The State charged Hedgecock with theft of means of
transportation, a class 3 felony. See A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5). The State alleged
Hedgecock had prior convictions and committed the offense while on
probation. The State also alleged two additional aggravating
circumstances—that Hedgecock committed the offense as consideration for
the receipt or expectation of pecuniary value and that the victim suffered
financial harm.

2
 STATE v. HEDGECOCK
Decision of the Court

¶4 After a three-day trial, a jury found Hedgecock guilty of theft
of means of transportation. The jury also found that Hedgecock committed
the offense while on parole and that the State proved both aggravating
factors. The court held a bench trial on Hedgecock’s alleged prior
convictions and found Hedgecock had three prior felony convictions,
making him a category three repetitive offender for sentencing purposes.
See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J). As a result of his prior convictions and the
aggravating factors, the court sentenced Hedgecock to 13 years in prison,
with 439 days of credit for presentence incarceration credit.

¶5 Hedgecock timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
independently reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104
Ariz. at 300. We find none.

¶7 Hedgecock was present and represented by counsel at all
critical stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects the
superior court afforded Hedgecock his constitutional and statutory rights
and conducted the proceedings consistent with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to
support the jury’s verdict and the court’s sentence. The sentence falls
within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for
presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm Hedgecock’s conviction and sentence. With the
filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligation to represent Hedgecock
in this appeal will end after informing Hedgecock of the outcome and his
future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for a
petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140
Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AGFV

3