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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RONALD ALFORD, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0054 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-001921-002 

The Honorable Marvin L. Davis, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael O’Toole

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Cynthia Dawn Beck

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-13-2020
STATE v. ALFORD

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding 

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Ronald Alford filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. 

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

counsel searched the record and identified no arguable, non-frivolous 

question of law. Counsel, therefore, asks this court to review the record for 

fundamental error. Alford was given an opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief in propria persona. He has not done so. Finding no error in the record, 

Alford’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This court views the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolves all reasonable inferences against 

Alford. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). Because the 

fact finder is charged with weighing evidence and assessing witness 

credibility, this court will not invade those duties. See State v. Williams, 209 

Ariz. 228, 231, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).

¶3 All American Billet (AAB) is an auto parts store in the 

business of selling auto parts to customers and other retailers. On April 21, 

2017, a man entered AAB and inquired about a custom serpentine belt with 

air conditioning. He subsequently purchased a serpentine kit without air 

conditioning. He paid for the belt with a credit card. According to a 

purchase order filled out by AAB, the customer’s name was Tyshon Ross.

¶4 On April 25, 2017, Alford entered AAB and spoke with an 

employee about converting the serpentine belt he purchased to 

accommodate air conditioning. Later the same day, AAB learned the April 

21 credit card transaction was declined. AAB tried to contact the credit 

card’s bank, but the phone number given was for a local college.

¶5 On May 12, 2017, Alford returned to AAB and again inquired 

about buying a serpentine belt. The AAB employees recognized him and 

called the police. Alford attempted to buy a serpentine belt with a credit 

card, but when asked for identification, he left. An AAB employee tried to 
STATE v. ALFORD

Decision of the Court

3 

prevent Alford from leaving the parking lot, but Alford was able to leave 

before the police arrived. The AAB employees gave the police a description 

of the vehicle and the license plate number, which led them to Alford.

¶6 Alford denied he was at AAB on April 21, 2017, but three AAB 

employees identified him in a photographic lineup. Officers searched

Alford’s home, where they found a credit card reader and credit cards with 

different bank information printed on them but no credit card numbers. The 

information on the cards’ magnetic strips was to various bank accounts.

Further investigation determined the declined credit card from the April 21 

transaction belonged to J.B., who did not know Alford and did not give him 

permission to use his bank card.

¶7 Alford was charged with one count of aggravated taking 

identity of another. See A.R.S. § 13-2009. Alford pled not guilty on the single 

count. Before trial, the State filed a notice of intent to use other acts evidence 

under Arizona Rule of Evidence 404(b). Specifically, the State sought to 

introduce the credit card readers and credit cards found at Alford’s house. 

Over Alford’s objection, the superior court found the evidence admissible 

and not unfairly prejudicial.

¶8 The trial lasted six days. Alford testified in his own defense. 

The jury found Alford guilty of aggravated taking identity of another, a 

class 3 felony. The State declined to do an aggravation phase. The superior 

court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Alford on three 

years’ supervised probation. Alford was ordered to pay $1,795 in restitution 

to AAB.

¶9 Alford timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21.A.1, 

13-4031, and 13-4033.A.1. 

ANALYSIS

¶10 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and fully 

reviewed the record for reversible error, finding none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 

300; State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

¶11 All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Alford was present for, and 

represented by counsel at, all critical stages of the proceedings. See State v. 

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

jury was properly comprised of eight jurors. See A.R.S. § 21-102.B. The 

record shows no evidence of jury misconduct. The superior court properly 
STATE v. ALFORD

Decision of the Court

4 

instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offense, the State’s 

burden of proof, and Alford’s presumed innocence. Additionally, Alford

was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing, and the sentence imposed 

was within the statutory guidelines. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10(b)(1); 

A.R.S. §§ 13-701.C, 13-702. 

CONCLUSION

¶12 Alford’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 

¶13 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Alford’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more 

than inform Alford of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 

unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to 

our supreme court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584-85 (1984). 

¶14 Alford has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propia persona petition for review. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 31.21. This court, on its own motion, also grants Alford thirty 

days from the date of this decision to file an in propia persona motion for 

reconsideration. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20.