State v. Williams

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LAYDON WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0524
FILED 01-09-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-006158-001
The Honorable Harla M. Davison, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

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

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Adam Susser
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Laydon
Williams has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he has
found no arguable question of law and asks the court to conduct an Anders
review of the record. Williams was given the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief but has not done so. This court has reviewed the record
and, for the reasons that follow, affirms Williams’ convictions and
sentences as modified to reflect additional presentence incarceration credit.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Williams was charged with two counts of aggravated driving
or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor: (1) for being impaired to the slightest degree and (2) for
having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more, both
Class 4 felonies. A.R.S. § 28-1383(A)(1), (O)(1). The offenses were alleged to
have been committed on April 9, 2021 in Phoenix. A jury found him guilty
as charged. Following a bench trial on priors, where the State presented
evidence of a prior felony conviction the court sentenced Williams as a non-
dangerous category 1 repetitive offender to two concurrent, mitigated
terms of 1.5 years in prison. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(H); 28-1383(A)(1), (O)(1).1

1 The court also revoked Williams’ driver’s license, ordered him to pay

$4,653 in fines and fees and recommended he be housed in a facility that
offers substance abuse treatment, along with a consecutive term of
community supervision pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-603(I). These matters are
not part of this appeal.

2
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

¶3 Williams was arrested on April 9, 2021 and taken to the police
station where he consented to two BAC tests that same day. After police
verified Williams’ driver’s license was suspended, Williams was taken into
Maricopa County custody based on four counts of aggravated DUI charges.
Pursuant to a bench warrant for failure to appear, Williams was again held
in custody for one day. Williams was then held in custody for 33 days
between the guilty verdict and sentencing. The court awarded Williams 36
days of presentence incarceration credit for Count One and 34 days of
presentence incarceration credit for Count Two.

¶4 This court has jurisdiction over Williams’ timely appeal under
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -
4033(A)(1) (2025).2

DISCUSSION

¶5 The record shows Williams was represented by counsel at all
stages of the proceedings and counsel was present at all critical stages. The
record also shows that, at the request of his counsel, Williams was
evaluated and found competent to stand trial. The record contains
substantial evidence supporting the verdicts.

¶6 Williams has a right to presentence incarceration credit for his
prison sentences, A.R.S. § 13-712(B), and if he was not properly credited
with that time, this court can correct that credit on appeal, see State v. Ritch, 160 Ariz. 495, 499 (App. 1989). The presentence investigation report
recommended that he be credited for two days of presentence incarceration
for Count One, but not for Count Two, for April 9 and 10, 2021, the day of
the offenses and the next day. His April 9, 2021 release questionnaire,
however, indicates that he was facing both charges resulting in Counts One
and Two, as well as two other counts that were not filed. Accordingly, he
was entitled to two days of presentence credit on both convictions. See
A.R.S. § 13-712(B). Because Williams was in custody for 36 days before he
was sentenced to both counts, this court awards a corrected amount of
presentence incarceration credit of 36 days for Count Two.

¶7 In all other respects, however, from the record presented, all
proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure.

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3
 STATE v. WILLIAMS
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶8 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record provided for reversable error and has corrected the
presentence incarceration calculation for Count Two. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at
300; see also State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999); see also Ritch,
160 Ariz. at 499. Accordingly, Williams’ convictions and resulting sentences
are affirmed as modified to reflect additional presentence incarceration
credit for Count Two.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Williams of the status of the appeal and of his future options.
Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel
identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme
Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85
(1984). Williams has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he
desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

4