State v. Gates

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LAURENCE LEE GATES, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0082

FILED 11-19-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2020-128344-001
The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant

Laurence Lee Gates, San Luis
Appellant
 STATE v. GATES
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Laurence Lee Gates appeals his conviction and sentence for
misconduct involving weapons, A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4). After searching the
record and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Gates’s
counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court to search the
record for fundamental error. Gates filed a supplemental brief. After
reviewing the record, we affirm Gates’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2020, Scottsdale Police were dispatched to a motel for a
family fight, where they met Gates and his girlfriend. His girlfriend told
police that Gates had a shotgun in their room, which Gates admitted,
pointing to a gun case. Officers entered the room, secured the shotgun and
arrested Gates, who admitted to being a felon and handling the weapon.

¶3 A jury found Gates guilty of violating A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4),
misconduct involving weapons (prohibited possessor). The superior court
found Gates had nine historical felonies and sentenced him to the
presumptive term of ten years imprisonment. Gates timely appealed. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 9, and A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶4 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find
none.

¶5 Gates was present and represented by counsel at all stages of
the proceedings against him. The record shows that the superior court
afforded Gates all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the
proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings,

2
 STATE v. GATES
Decision of the Court

and the evidence presented at trial, as summarized above, was sufficient to
support the jury’s verdict. Gates’s sentence falls within the range
prescribed by law, with sufficient credit given for presentence
incarceration.

¶6 Gates filed a supplemental brief arguing the superior court
should have granted his Rule 20(a) motion because there was no evidence
he had access to or physically possessed the shotgun. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
20(a). We review the denial of a Rule 20(a) motion for acquittal based on
whether the record contains substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.
State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 14 (2011). Convicting under A.R.S. § 13-
3102(A)(4) does not require access to or actual possession of the firearm; it
may be constructively possessed. State v. Gonsalves, 231 Ariz. 521, 523, ¶ 9
(App. 2013). “Constructive possession exists when the prohibited property
is found in a place under the defendant’s dominion or control and under
circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that the defendant
had actual knowledge of the existence of the property.” State v. Ingram, 239
Ariz. 228, 233, ¶ 21 (App. 2016) (quotation omitted).

¶7 Gates was standing outside a hotel room when police arrived
and the shotgun was found in the room. During questioning, Gates pointed
to the gun, said it was his and admitted handling it. The record has
sufficient evidence to establish Gates had constructive possession of the
gun.

CONCLUSION

¶8 Gates’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. Counsel’s
obligations in this appeal will end once Gates is informed of the outcome
and his future options, unless 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). On the court’s own motion, Gates
has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

3