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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GERALD DARNELL RICHARDSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0420 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-119295-001

The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Bain & Lauritano, PLC, Glendale

By Amy E. Bain

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 9-14-2023
STATE v. RICHARDSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Gerald Darnell Richardson appeals his convictions 

and sentences for one count of armed robbery, two counts of assault, and 

two counts of kidnapping. Defense counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

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

advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Richardson was 

given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did 

not do so. Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error, 

State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all 

reasonable inferences against Richardson, see State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 

293 (1989). Having reviewed the entire record, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Alerted by a chime at the storefront door, the assistant 

manager of a video game store turned to greet a prospective customer.

What he saw was a man wearing a black bandana over the lower half of his 

face and brandishing, in his right hand, a silver, “shiny” gun. As the robber 

entered the store and approached the counter, he pulled the bandana from 

his face, “tuck[ed]” the gun in his pants, warned the assistant manager and 

the other store employee, a “game advisor,” not to “push [any] buttons,” 

and demanded all the money in the cash register and a gaming console.

After handing over the money, the assistant manager stated that the gaming 

consoles were stored in a back room, so the robber ordered the assistant 

manager and the game advisor to lead him to the storage area. 

¶3 Once in the back room, the robber demanded a specific, 

“more expensive” gaming console. The employees complied. When the 

robber had the cash and the gaming console, he ordered the employees to 

remain in the back room and then left the store through the front door. The 

assistant manager then called the police to report. 
STATE v. RICHARDSON

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The ensuing police investigation eventually focused on 

Richardson. The State charged Richardson with one count of armed 

robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of kidnapping, and 

one count of misconduct involving weapons. The State also alleged 

numerous aggravating factors and that Richardson had prior felony 

convictions and was on probation at the time of the offenses. 

¶5 At trial, the assistant store manager and the game advisor

identified Richardson as the person who had committed the robbery.

Although both employees avoided making eye contact with the robber, 

they explained that they could identify him because they carefully

reviewed the store’s surveillance video after the robbery. Apart from 

presenting the employees’ accounts of the robbery and identification 

testimony, the State submitted as an exhibit the gaming store’s surveillance 

video of the robbery, which was played for the jury. 

¶6 At the close of evidence, Richardson moved for judgment of 

acquittal under Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 20, which the 

trial court summarily denied. The court’s final instructions to the jury 

included Richardson’s requests for lesser-included offense instructions on 

robbery and misdemeanor assault. 

¶7 After a six-day trial, the jury convicted Richardson of one 

count of armed robbery, two counts of misdemeanor assault, and two 

counts of kidnapping, but acquitted him of both counts of aggravated 

assault and misconduct involving weapons.

¶8 At the sentencing hearing, the State presented evidence that 

Richardson had at least two prior felony convictions and committed the 

present offenses while on felony probation. The trial court sentenced

Richardson to concurrent, presumptive terms of 15.75 years imprisonment

for the armed robbery and kidnapping counts, and four months in jail (time 

served) for the assault counts. Because Richardson violated his probation

by committing these offenses, presumptive terms were the minimum 

sentences allowed by law. See A.R.S. § 13-708(C). 

¶9 After sentencing, Richardson’s attorney failed to file a notice 

of appeal before withdrawing. Years later, Richardson successfully moved 

for post-conviction relief under Rule 32.1(f) and obtained leave to file a new 

notice of appeal.

¶10 Richardson timely appealed following that order. We have 

jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and 

A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21, 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).
STATE v. RICHARDSON

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶11 Our review of the record shows no reversible error requiring 

remand. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects that Richardson

was represented by counsel and present at all critical stages. State v. Conner, 

163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977). The jury 

appropriately consisted of 12 jurors in accordance with A.R.S. § 21-102(A). 

The court properly instructed the jury of Richardson’s presumption of 

innocence and right not to testify, the State’s burden of proof, and the 

elements of the charges Richardson faced. Nothing during Richardson’s 

trial or sentencing hearing unfairly prejudiced him or deprived him of any 

constitutional protections.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. Accordingly, we affirm Richardson’s convictions and sentences. 

After this decision’s filing, defense counsel’s obligations in this appeal will 

end. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Richardson 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 this

court’s motion, Richardson has 30 days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration 

or petition for review.