State v. Green

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RANDY LEVON GREEN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0387
FILED 7-7-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2018-150691-001
The Honorable Julie Ann Mata, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Michael O'Toole
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Margaret M. Green
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. GREEN
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Acting Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the
Court, in which Judge Kent E. Cattani1 and Judge Michael J. Brown2 joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Randy Levon Green appeals his convictions and sentences for
one count of unlawful imprisonment. After searching the entire record,
Green's defense counsel identified no arguable question of law that is not
frivolous. Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this
Court to search the record for fundamental error. Green was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but has not done
so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS3 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Green and the victim lived together and were in a long-term
relationship. In October 2018, the victim could not leave their shared
apartment because Green had the only key to unlock the door. When Green
returned home, he demanded the victim's debit card before he would allow
her to leave. She declined, and Green refused to unlock the door. While
Green was in the bathroom, the victim texted police who arrived and broke
down the door to the apartment.

1 Judge Kent E. Cattani replaces the Honorable Diane M. Johnsen, who
was originally assigned to this panel. Judge Kent E. Cattani has read the
briefs and reviewed the record.

2 Judge Michael J. Brown replaces the Honorable Kenton D. Jones,
who was originally assigned to this panel. Judge Michael J. Brown has read
the briefs and reviewed the record.

3 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant."
State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996) (citation omitted).

2
 STATE v. GREEN
Decision of the Court

¶3 Green was charged with one count of unlawful
imprisonment. See A.R.S. § 13-1303(A). He waived his right to a jury trial
in exchange for the state reducing the charge to a misdemeanor.4 See A.R.S.
§ 13-3983; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(b). The court held a two-day bench trial at
which the State presented five witnesses. After the close of the state's case,
Green moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court found substantial
evidence to warrant a conviction and denied the motion. The court
convicted Green as charged and found that the offense was a domestic
violence offense.

¶4 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in
compliance with Green's constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal
Procedure 26. The court considered the emotional and financial harm to
the victim as an aggravating circumstance and Green's lack of felony
criminal history as a mitigating circumstance. The court sentenced Green
to six months jail, with ninety-five days of presentence incarceration credit.
The court ordered Green to pay $35 in fees.

¶5 Green timely appealed. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review Green's convictions and sentences for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
After a diligent search of the entire record, counsel for Green advised this
Court that she has found no arguable question of law. We have read and
considered counsel's brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible
error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 299-300, and find none. All the proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
and the record reveals that counsel represented Green at all stages of the
proceedings. There was sufficient evidence from which the court could
determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Green is guilty of the charged
offense. At sentencing, the court received a criminal history report, Green
was given an opportunity to speak, and the court stated on the record the
evidence and factors it considered in imposing the sentences. See Ariz. R.

4 Misdemeanor unlawful imprisonment is a jury-eligible offense.
Kaniowsky v. Pima Cty. Consol. Justice Court, 239 Ariz. 326, 331, ¶ 21 (App.
2016); cf. Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416, 422, ¶¶ 21-22 (2005) (adopting
rebuttable presumption against jury trial for misdemeanors for which the
maximum penalty is less than six months incarceration).

3
 STATE v. GREEN
Decision of the Court

Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits.
See A.R.S. §§ 13-707, -802, -3601. We affirm Green's conviction and sentence.

¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Green 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). Green shall have 30 days from
the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for
reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Green's conviction and
sentence.

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

4