State v. White

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SCOTTY KAMAKAHOOHIE WHITE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0470
FILED 09-09-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in La Paz County
No. S1500CR202400230
The Honorable Robert Duber, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Casey Ball
Counsel for Appellee

Ruffner Law, PLLC, Lake Havasu City
By Scott W. Ruffner
Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. WHITE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Veronika Fabian and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Scotty White appeals his conviction of second-degree
burglary and the resulting sentence. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 One morning in mid-September 2024, Lieutenant Schlecht of
the La Paz County Sheriff’s Office (then off-duty) was on a walk through a
neighborhood in Parker. Around 6:00 a.m., Schlecht saw White walking
through a gravel yard, moving away from a vacant house. White was
carrying two gun bags, one black and one grey. Schlecht recognized White
from prior interactions, and the two made eye contact as they passed one
another at a short distance. Schlecht returned to the vacant house when on
duty later that morning, saw the doors were not secured, and reported the
matter to dispatch.

¶3 The house’s renter, who lived elsewhere but checked on the
house weekly, said two gun bags were missing from inside: a long, grey
zipper bag and a slightly shorter, black zipper bag. The bags had been deep
within the house, several rooms away from either entrance. Both the renter
and the house’s owner confirmed that they did not know White and had
not given him permission to enter the house or remove items.

¶4 Schlecht told the investigating deputy about seeing White
that morning and described White’s clothing. White was arrested later that
day, wearing the same clothing Schlecht had described. The gun bags were
never recovered.

¶5 The State charged White with second-degree burglary. At
trial, White offered an alibi defense (his girlfriend testified that he was at
home asleep with her at the time) and challenged the adequacy of the
investigation. The jury found White guilty as charged.

¶6 The court sentenced White as a category one repetitive
offender to a less-than-presumptive term of three years’ imprisonment.

2

STATE v. WHITE
Decision of the Court

White timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 13-
4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 White challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction of second-degree burglary. An individual commits second-
degree burglary by “entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential
structure with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.” A.R.S.
§ 13-1507(A); see also A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1) (defining “theft” to include
knowingly and without lawful authority “[c]ontrol[ling] property of
another with the intent to deprive the other person of such property”).

¶8 We consider sufficiency of the evidence de novo, assessing
whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the
verdict, was such that a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶¶ 15–16 (2011).
Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial; Arizona law draws no
distinction between the two. State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 603 (1993). And
if probative evidence supports the verdict, the existence of conflicting
evidence does not undermine its sufficiency. See State v. Williams, 209 Ariz.
228, 231, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).

¶9 Highlighting the absence of forensic evidence and the fact that
Schlecht saw him only outside, White asserts that no evidence showed he
ever entered the house, which is an element of the offense of burglary. See
A.R.S. § 13-1507(A). But Schlecht testified that he saw White walking
through the yard away from the house while carrying black and grey gun
bags. The house renter testified that two such gun bags were missing and
were inside the house just days before. Even if circumstantial, this evidence
permitted an inference of entry sufficient to support the conviction. See
West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16.

¶10 White further asserts that the evidence identifying him as the
perpetrator was not sufficient to support his conviction. He highlights that
the house could have been broken into days earlier, that no stolen property
was found in his possession and that no forensic evidence tied him to the
crime scene. White also emphasizes that his girlfriend testified he was with
her at the time and that during the investigation, the deputy mistook a
neighborhood man for White.

¶11 But Schlecht testified that he saw, recognized, and identified
White by name as White passed him, walking away from the house with
the renter’s gun bags over his shoulder. When arrested later that day, White

3

STATE v. WHITE
Decision of the Court

was wearing the same clothes Schlecht had described. See State v. Smith, 250 Ariz. 69, 84–85, ¶ 50 (2020) (gauging reliability of a pretrial
identification based on factors including the witness’s degree of attention
and opportunity to view the defendant, the accuracy of the witness’s
description, and the witness’s initial level of certainty) (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199–200 (1972)). Ultimately, the jury had to assess the
witnesses’ credibility and determine how to weigh and resolve conflicting
evidence. See State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357, ¶ 27 (2007). Even though
White offered an alternative theory, Schlecht’s identification testimony
provided a sufficient basis for the jury’s verdict. See Williams, 209 Ariz. at
231, ¶ 6.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4