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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LORENZO LEON BROWN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0099

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-126217-001

The Honorable Brian Kaiser, Commissioner

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Terry J. Adams

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BROWN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Lorenzo Leon Brown timely appeals from his conviction and 

sentence for unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle. See 

Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 28-622.01 (2012). After searching the record on 

appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, 

Brown’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 

297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for 

fundamental error. This court granted counsel’s motion to allow Brown to 

file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Brown did not do so. After 

reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, therefore, 

affirm Brown’s conviction and sentence as corrected.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 Just before 1:00 a.m. on February 13, 2012, Brown was driving 

a red Infiniti northbound on 23rd Avenue in Phoenix. As it passed a 

Phoenix police officer finishing a traffic stop, the officer recognized the 

vehicle as one that had fled him a week prior and noticed the driver and 

lone occupant was a black male. The officer followed the Infiniti, activating 

his lights and sirens after the Infiniti rapidly accelerated from a traffic light. 

The Infiniti pulled away, reaching a speed of over 70 miles per hour, and 

the officer gave up the pursuit. The officer saw the red Infiniti turn west 

onto Earll Drive.

¶3 After waiting approximately five minutes, the officer

followed the Infiniti’s route down Earll Drive and found it parked in a 

residential driveway. The officer found Brown, a black male, trying to 

 

1We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the jury’s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Brown. State 

v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 
STATE v. BROWN

Decision of the Court

3

conceal himself in the driver’s seat; the keys were in his hand and no one 

else was in the Infiniti. Another responding officer arrested Brown. 

¶4 A grand jury indicted Brown with unlawful flight from a law 

enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony, under A.R.S. § 28-622.01. A jury of 

eight found Brown guilty as charged and found he committed the offense 

while on probation for two other felonies. See A.R.S. § 13-708(A) (Supp. 

2014). At trial, Brown admitted he had two prior historical felony 

convictions. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(22), -703(J) (Supp. 2014). The superior 

court sentenced Brown to a presumptive term of five years imprisonment. 

DISCUSSION

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Brown received a fair 

trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and 

was present at all critical stages.

¶6 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdict. The jury was properly comprised of eight members and the 

court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charge, Brown’s 

presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of 

a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a 

presentence report, Brown was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing

and did so, and his sentence was within the range of acceptable sentences 

for his offense. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(J), 28-622.01. 

¶7 In our review of the record, we discovered two errors in the 

superior court’s sentencing minute entry. First, due to a typographical 

error, the minute entry refers to A.R.S. § 28-3001 as “258-3001.” Second, the 

minute entry reflects that the superior court sentenced Brown pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 13-702 (2010), the sentencing statute for first-time offenders, and 

that Brown’s offense was “Non Repetitive.” The record shows, however, 

Brown admitted to two prior felonies, and the superior court sentenced him 

to a presumptive term of five years consistent with Brown’s status as a class 

three repetitive offender. See A.R.S. § 13-703(J). Thus, we correct the 

sentencing minute entry to replace the citation to “258-3001” with “28-3001” 

and the citation to “13-702” with “13-703(J)” and to delete the description 

of the offense as “Non Repetitive.”
STATE v. BROWN

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶8 We decline to order briefing and affirm Brown’s conviction

and sentence as corrected to reflect Brown was sentenced pursuant to A.R.S. 

§ 13-703(J).

¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Brown’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Brown 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, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 

(1984).

¶10 Brown has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court’s 

own motion, we also grant Brown 30 days from the date of this decision to 

file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.