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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TAURICE LEON SINGLETON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0160

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-116539-001

The Honorable Annielaurie Van Wie, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Gracynthia Claw

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Lawrence Blieden

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SINGLETON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.1

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Taurice Singleton appeals his conviction and resulting 

probation grant for unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, 

claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Having 

shown no reversible error, his conviction and probation grant are affirmed. 

FACTS2 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In April 2015, Singleton borrowed his neighbor’s truck to pick 

up a box spring for his 5-year old son at a nearby store. His son 

accompanied him to the store. When they arrived, Singleton had his son sit 

in the truck to eat while he went inside to get the box spring. 

¶3 While Singleton was inside the store, watching his son 

through the window, two uniformed police officers noticed his son sitting 

unattended in the truck. One officer spoke with the child and Singleton then 

came out of the store and spoke with the officer. After taking down 

Singleton’s information, the officers left to respond to an unrelated call. On 

the way to that unrelated call, the officers ran Singleton’s information and 

discovered he had a suspended license. When the unrelated call was 

cancelled, the officers went back to find Singleton. 

¶4 While driving east in their marked police car, the officers saw 

Singleton driving west. The officers activated their overhead emergency 

lights and made a U-turn over a median to pull-up behind Singleton. Both 

 

1 The Honorable Maurice Portley and Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, Retired 

Judges of the Court of Appeals, Division One, have been authorized to sit 

in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.

2 This court “view[s] the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

jury’s verdict and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against [Singleton].”

State v. Lopez, 209 Ariz. 58, 59 ¶ 2 (App. 2004).
STATE v. SINGLETON

Decision of the Court

3

vehicles then stopped at a red stop light, the officers in their marked police 

car with activated lights directly behind Singleton. When the stop light 

turned green, Singleton drove away. The officers followed with emergency 

lights still activated and briefly used their sirens twice in a further attempt 

to get his attention, believing Singleton was probably heading toward his 

home. In the end, Singleton drove about a mile, going through several 

intersections, making turns, obeying traffic laws and eventually pulling 

into a driveway near his home.

¶5 Approximately three minutes after the officers first activated 

their lights, Singleton pulled into his neighbor’s driveway. At this point, the 

officers arrested Singleton. During his conversation with the officers, 

Singleton explained that he did not stop immediately because “he wanted 

to get his son to a safe place.” He also admitted that he knew his license was 

revoked and that he knew the officers were behind him while he was 

driving, although he did not specify when he first noticed the officers. 

¶6 At trial, Singleton testified that he did not realize the officers 

were behind him until he had pulled into his neighborhood. Singleton and 

his neighbor testified that Singleton had called his neighbor twice before 

pulling into the driveway. During the first call, Singleton wanted to talk 

about his interaction with the police at the store, but the neighbor had to 

cut the call short. During the second call, shortly after the neighbor ended 

the first call, Singleton told his neighbor police officers were behind him 

and he needed him to take care of his son. Singleton testified that he spoke 

with another person on the phone before making either call to his neighbor. 

¶7 Singleton was indicted on one count of unlawful flight from a 

law enforcement vehicle, a Class 5 felony. After motion practice, a hearing 

in which his statements were determined not to be in violation of Miranda 

v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and a three-day trial, where Singleton 

unsuccessfully moved for a judgment of acquittal, the jury found him 

guilty. The court suspended his sentence and he was placed on 

unsupervised probation for 18 months. This court has jurisdiction over 

Singleton’s timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 

Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A) (2017).3

 

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

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
STATE v. SINGLETON

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶8 Although unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle has 

three statutory elements, on appeal, Singleton only disputes whether the 

State proved one element: that he willfully fled or attempted to elude the 

law enforcement vehicle. See A.R.S. § 28-622.01. Singleton argues because 

there was “no evasive driving and otherwise completely lawful behavior, 

there is no evidence to support the” guilty verdict. Essentially, according to 

Singleton, because the distance and time of the pursuit were short, and he 

obeyed all traffic laws and made no attempt to evade the police, there is 

insufficient evidence to prove he willfully fled the law enforcement vehicle. 

¶9 This court will disturb a jury’s verdict based on insufficiency 

of the evidence only “where there is a complete absence of probative facts 

to support the conviction.” State v. Large, 234 Ariz. 274, 277 ¶ 8 (App. 2014)

(citations omitted). This court will review the sufficiency of evidence to 

“determine if substantial evidence existed to support the jury verdict.” State 

v. Cornman, 237 Ariz. 350, 356 ¶ 21 (App. 2015). “Substantial evidence is 

‘more than a “mere scintilla”‘ of evidence that ‘reasonable persons could 

accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’”

Id. (citations omitted). Even if this court would have reached a different 

conclusion than the jury, this court only considers whether there is a 

“complete absence” of evidence to support the jury’s conclusion. State v. 

Carlisle, 198 Ariz. 203, 206 ¶ 11 (App. 2000).

¶10 Singleton testified he did not see the police car until he was in 

his neighborhood, which he claims negates the willfulness element. The 

officers, however, testified they could see inside the truck, did not believe 

his view was obstructed and that, although he spoke freely with the officers 

and explained other reasons for his failure to stop, Singleton did not 

mention to the officers that he didn’t see them until they entered his 

neighborhood. The jury properly was charged with resolving this 

conflicting testimony, and this court does not re-evaluate that resolution.

See State v. Lewis, 224 Ariz. 512, 516 ¶ 21 (App. 2010) (“‘The finder-of-fact, 

not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility 

of witnesses.’”) (citation omitted). Although Singleton also asserted he did 

not pull over immediately out of fear for his son’s safety, the jury could 

reasonably have concluded that, even if true, it was not reasonable to 

believe police officers would leave his son alone on the side of the road. 

This is particularly so given the officers had expressed concern for the son’s 

wellbeing less than an hour earlier at the store.
STATE v. SINGLETON

Decision of the Court

5

¶11 That Singleton obeyed other traffic laws and the pursuit was 

of short duration and distance are of no moment. Arizona requires neither 

long duration nor the breaking of other traffic laws to show unlawful flight 

from a law enforcement vehicle. See, e.g., State v. Fogarty, 178 Ariz. 170, 171

(App. 1993) (holding “any refusal to stop on command of an officer who is 

in a police car violates the felony flight statute” and affirming an unlawful 

flight conviction when the defendant drove slowly, did not violate any 

traffic laws and the pursuit was of short duration); State v. Gonzalez, 221 

Ariz. 82, 83 ¶ 3 (App. 2009) (affirming unlawful flight conviction when 

officer and defendant drove at slow speeds, the defendant pulled over 

across the street from his house and “the pursuit lasted ‘a minute or less’”);

State v. Fiihr, 221 Ariz. 135, 136 ¶ 5 (App. 2008) (similar); State v. Martinez, 

230 Ariz. 382, 383 ¶ 2 (App. 2012) (affirming unlawful flight conviction 

when officer “discontinued the pursuit after a few moments”).

¶12 On this record, the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable 

person to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Cornman, 237 Ariz. at

356 ¶ 21. Accordingly, Singleton has not shown there was insufficient 

evidence to support his conviction. 

CONCLUSION

¶13 Because Singleton has shown no reversible error, his 

conviction and probation grant are affirmed.