State v. Siegfried

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMES BYRN SIEGFRIED, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0236
FILED 12-17-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
Nos. P1300CR202200842, P1300CR202200861
The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Michael J. Dew, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. SIEGFRIED
Decision of the Court

James B. Siegfried, Eloy
Appellant

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 James B.
Siegfried has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he has
found no arguable question of law and asks this court to conduct an Anders
review of the record. Siegfried was given the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief pro se and has done so. This court has reviewed the
record and has found no reversible error. Accordingly, Siegfried’s
convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Siegfried was charged with two counts of aggravated assault,
both Class 3 felonies; resisting arrest, a Class 6 felony; misconduct involving
weapons, a Class 4 felony and liquor or spirituous liquor in a motor vehicle,
a Class 2 misdemeanor, all alleged to have been committed on June 30, 2022
in Paulden, Arizona.

¶3 At trial, the jury found Siegfried guilty as charged on both
counts of aggravated assault and misconduct involving weapons and not
guilty of resisting arrest. The misdemeanor charge was tried to the court,
which found him guilty of liquor or spirituous liquor in a motor vehicle.

¶4 The superior court held a hearing to address prior felony
convictions. The State presented four certified prior felony conviction
documents as well as expert testimony matching Siegfried’s fingerprints in
the Booking Sheet to those in the certified documents. The court found the
State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Siegfried was
previously convicted of two counts of armed robbery, both dangerous
felony offenses. The State also proved by clear and convincing evidence that
Siegfried was subsequently convicted of attempted first degree murder, a

2
 STATE v. SIEGFRIED
Decision of the Court

dangerous felony offense; burglary, a dangerous felony offense and two
counts of aggravated assault, both dangerous felony offenses.

¶5 Because Siegfried had “previously been convicted on separate
occasions of two or more violent or aggravated felonies not committed on
the same occasion,” the court sentenced him to concurrent lifetime
imprisonment on the aggravated assault convictions with no eligibility for
suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release on any basis except
that he may be eligible for commutation after serving at least 35 years in
prison. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-706(B) (2024).1 The court sentenced
him to 120 days in jail for the misdemeanor conviction, with credit for time
served. The court properly awarded Siegfried 648 days of presentence
incarceration credit.

¶6 This court has jurisdiction over Siegfried’s timely appeal
under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (2024).

DISCUSSION

¶7 The record shows that Siegfried was represented by counsel
at all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical
stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The
sentence imposed was within statutory limits, and the presentence
incarceration credit was correct. See A.R.S. § 13-706(B). And in all other
respects, from the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶8 Siegfried filed a supplemental brief raising several issues,
including improper admission of prior convictions for purposes of
sentencing. Siegfried argues that the State “failed fundamentally to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt, via its own Yavapai county created
documentation and ‘expert’ testimony, that [Siegfried’s] priors existed.”
Siegfried asserts the State’s “fundamental failure under Due Process Clause
altered [the] trial court’s sentencing.”

¶9 Siegfried’s argument is unavailing. “Prior convictions for
sentence enhancement purposes must be established
by clear and convincing evidence.” State v. Cons, 208 Ariz. 409, 415 ¶ 15
(App. 2004). “The proper procedure for establishing a prior conviction is
for the state to submit a certified copy of the conviction and establish that

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

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3
 STATE v. SIEGFRIED
Decision of the Court

the defendant is the person to whom the document refers.” Id. at 415 ¶ 16
(citation omitted). The State must provide “positive identification
establishing that the accused is the same person who previously was
convicted, as well as evidence of the conviction itself.” Id. (citation omitted).

¶10 During the hearing to prove priors, the State presented four
certified prior convictions to the court. The certified copies listed Siegfried’s
name, date of birth, physical description, photo and the alias Siegfried
testified during trial he had previously used. The State also presented
expert testimony that the fingerprints in the certified prior convictions
matched Siegfried’s fingerprints in the Booking Sheet.

¶11 Siegfried argues the “State’s fingerprint ‘expert’ could not
certify the fingerprints from the alleged priors (CR93-0546).” The expert
testified the certified prior conviction for CR93-0546 did not have quality
prints for comparison, but a certified Arizona penitentiary package (Pen
Pack for short), which included that same conviction, had quality prints
that matched Siegfried’s. Siegfried also appears to take issue with the
expert’s lack of certification. Because experts can be qualified based on
“knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,” the expert’s lack of
certification is not dispositive, particularly given expert’s extensive
experience in this case. See Ariz. R. Evid. 702. The State presented sufficient
evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence Siegfried’s prior
convictions for sentence enhancement purposes.

¶12 Siegfried also claims the State committed prosecutorial
misconduct at multiple stages of the case. First, Siegfried argues the State
“knowingly lied and misrepresented evidence to [the] grand jury . . . to
enhance charges.” “A defendant alleging prosecutorial misconduct in a
grand jury proceeding generally must seek relief from an adverse trial court
ruling through special action rather than waiting to raise such issues on
appeal.” State v. Snelling, 225 Ariz. 182, 185 ¶ 11 (2010) (citing cases). “The
one exception to this rule is when a defendant has had to stand trial on an
indictment which the government knew was based partially on perjured,
material testimony.” Id. (citation omitted). Because Siegfried does not
identify any false statement or perjured testimony before the grand jury, he
is precluded from challenging the prosecutor's conduct during the grand
jury proceeding.

¶13 Second, Siegfried argues the State “lied and misrepresented
evidence to an impane[l]ed trial jury” regarding his prior convictions. The
only evidence of Siegfried’s prior convictions at trial was properly
introduced by Siegfried’s counsel in compliance with the superior court’s

4
 STATE v. SIEGFRIED
Decision of the Court

ruling on his motion to sanitize and limit Rule 609 impeachment
information. See Ariz. R. Evid. 609.

¶14 Third, Siegfried argues the State committed prosecutorial
misconduct through use of improper expert testimony and
misrepresentation of evidence to prove his priors. As stated above, the
admission of Siegfried’s priors for the purpose of sentence enhancement
was proper. Siegfried points to no evidence in the record to substantiate
these claims of prosecutorial misconduct and the court finds none. Thus,
Siegfried’s arguments fail.

¶15 Finally, Siegfried argues he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. Post-conviction relief proceedings—not this Anders appeal—are
the proper venue to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See State
v. Chavez, 243 Ariz. 313, 318 ¶ 15 (App. 2017).

CONCLUSION

¶16 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and
Siegfried’s pro per supplemental brief and has searched the record
provided for reversible error and has found none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 298-
300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Accordingly,
Siegfried’s convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

¶17 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Siegfried 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. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).
Siegfried shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he
desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

5