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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

AARON DONTEL KING, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0225

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-002466-001

The Honorable Alfred M. Fenzel, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Richard D. Gierloff, Attorney at Law, Mesa

By Richard D. Gierloff

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. KING

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.

B E E N E, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) 

following Aaron Dontel King’s convictions. King’s counsel searched the 

record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not 

frivolous. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). King was given the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. 

Counsel now asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. 

After reviewing the entire record, we affirm King’s convictions and 

sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶2 In 2012, King held a victim at gunpoint while two accomplices 

restrained and robbed the victim. Police pursued King and his two 

accomplices to a condominium complex. King and one of his accomplices 

broke into a condominium, where they demanded assistance from another 

victim while holding him at gunpoint. King’s accomplice held the condo–

victim at gunpoint and attempted to take money out of a purse. King was 

arrested by police as he attempted to flee.

¶3 After several attempts to reach a plea bargain, King went to 

trial in 2014. The jury convicted King on all seven counts–one count of 

armed robbery, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of aggravated 

assault, one count of burglary in the first degree, and one count of 

attempted armed robbery. The jury also found that all the offenses were 

dangerous felonies, and found the presence of several aggravating factors.

¶4 The superior court imposed prison sentences of 7.5 years on 

counts 2 and 7, 10.5 years on counts 1, 3, 4, and 6, and 12.5 years on count 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s 

verdicts and resolve all inferences against King. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 

229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).
STATE v. KING

Decision of the Court

3

5. The superior court ordered all sentences to run concurrently and gave 

King credit for 726 days of presentence incarceration.

¶5 King untimely appealed in 2015, but this Court reconsidered 

counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as a timely notice of appeal, and determined

King timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 

9 of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 

sections 12–120.21(A)(1) (2017), 13–4031 (2017) and 13–4033(A)(1) (2017).2

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reflects no fundamental error in pretrial 

proceedings. King rejected the State’s plea offer after a Donald advisement,

and his case proceeded to trial. State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000). 

Although King’s trial was not held until over one year after arraignment,

the superior court properly determined that extraordinary circumstances 

required continuance of the trial date, and such delay was indispensable to 

the interests of justice. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.5(b).

¶7 Defense requested a voluntariness hearing, but later agreed 

to a settlement conference in lieu of the voluntariness hearing. See State v. 

Alvarado, 121 Ariz. 485, 487 (1979) (“[I]t is the defendant who must move 

for a voluntariness hearing[.]”). Pursuant to Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure 11, Defendant was examined by mental health professionals to 

determine his competency to stand trial. After reviewing the mental health

reports, the superior court determined that King was competent to stand 

trial.

¶8 The record also reflects King received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and was 

present at all critical stages. The State presented direct and circumstantial 

evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict King. Although the gun 

used in the robbery was not loaded, an unloaded gun is still a dangerous 

weapon for an armed robbery offense. See A.R.S. § 13–105(19) (2017); State 

v. Cordova, 198 Ariz. 242, 243, ¶ 5 (App. 1999). The jury convicted King of 

attempted armed robbery of the condo–victim, but did not find that he did 

so as consideration for the receipt of anything of pecuniary value when 

determining the presence of aggravating circumstances. The elements of 

attempted armed robbery and the aggravating circumstance of receipt of 

 

2 Absent material revisions after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute’s current version.
STATE v. KING

Decision of the Court

4

pecuniary value are separate and distinct. See State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 

155, 164 (1991); State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, 341–42, ¶¶ 49–50 (2005).

¶9 The jury was properly comprised of twelve members with 

three alternates. The superior court properly instructed the jury on the 

elements of the charges. The key instructions concerning burden of proof, 

presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and the necessity of a 

unanimous verdict were also properly administered. The jury returned a 

unanimous verdict, and unanimously found the presence of several 

aggravating circumstances. The superior court received a presentence 

report, accounted for mitigating factors, and properly sentenced King to the 

presumptive sentence.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find 

none; therefore, we affirm the convictions and resulting sentences.

¶11 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligation 

pertaining to King’s representation in this appeal will end. Defense counsel 

need do no more than inform King of the outcome of this appeal and his 

future options, 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). On the Court’s own motion, King 

has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a 

pro per motion for reconsideration. Further, King has 30 days from the date 

of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.