NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

RAYMOND EARL MAYES, Appellant.

Nos. 1 CA-CR 14-0371, 1 CA-CR 14-0378, 1 CA-CR 14-0379 (Consolidated)

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-030197-001

CR2012-161943-001

CR2013-433938-001

The Honorable Teresa A. Sanders, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Spencer D. Heffel

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. MAYES

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

G O U L D, Judge

¶1 Raymond Earl Mayes (“Mayes”) appeals from his convictions 

and sentences in three cases consolidated for appeal. Mayes’ counsel filed 

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State 

v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that after a 

search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. 

Mayes was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona on 

or before December 8, 2014, and did not do so. 

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record 

for reversible error.” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 

(App. 1999). 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), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (West 2015).

1 Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History2 

¶3 In December 2012, Mayes was charged in two separate cases. 

In Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR2012-030197-001 SE (“Case 

No. CR12-030197”), Mayes was charged with one count of unlawful 

copying or sale of sounds from recording devices, a class three felony and 

one count of possession of narcotic drugs, a class four felony. Mayes 

eventually pled guilty to one count of facilitation to commit unlawful 

 

1 Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the 

applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have 

occurred.

2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 

778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989)
STATE v. MAYES

Decision of the Court

3

copying or sale of sounds from recording devices and one count of 

possession of drug paraphernalia, both class six undesignated felonies. 

¶4 In Mayes’ second case, Maricopa County Superior Court Case 

No. CR2012-161943-001 SE (“Case No. CR12-161943”), he was charged with 

one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia, both class six felonies. Mayes pled guilty to possession of 

marijuana as a class one misdemeanor and the State agreed to dismiss the 

paraphernalia charge. 

¶5 In January 2013, Mayes was placed on probation in both cases. 

In Case No. CR12-030197, Mayes was placed on three years’ probation for 

both counts. In Case No. CR12-161943, Mayes was placed on probation for 

one year. 

¶6 In July 2013, while Mayes was serving his probation terms, he 

was indicted in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CR2013-433938-

001 SE (“Case No. CR13-433938”) for one count of resisting arrest, a class 

six felony; assault, a class one misdemeanor; and promoting prison 

contraband, a class two felony. The State alleged Mayes’ two historical 

prior felony convictions in Case No. CR12-030197 for the purpose of 

enhancing Mayes’ sentence. The state also alleged Mayes was on felony 

probation in Case No. CR12-030197 when he committed the current 

offenses. 

¶7 Mayes eventually went to trial in Case No. CR13-433938. The 

evidence presented at trial showed that in July of 2013, Mayes and his 

girlfriend, victim M.F., got into an argument. Mayes left their apartment, 

but returned early the next morning. When Mayes returned, he was 

intoxicated; he began yelling outside the victim’s bedroom window, and 

threw a cd case with a rock in it through her window. The victim eventually 

allowed Mayes into the apartment. 

¶8 Once inside, Mayes and the victim began arguing again. 

When the victim tried to leave, Mayes threw her on the bed and tumbled 

with her to the floor. Mayes then shoved his knee against the victim’s neck 

and punched her in the ribs. Mayes continued to punch the victim in her 

ribs until she said she would die if he did not stop. Mayes finally released 

the victim, who then drove to a nearby gas station and called the police. 

¶9 The police responded to the victim’s call and drove with her 

back to the apartment to contact Mayes. An officer located Mayes and 

placed him under arrest. However, when Mayes saw the victim going 

through some of his belongings at the scene, he began to struggle with the 
STATE v. MAYES

Decision of the Court

4

officers. The officers struggled to maintain control of Mayes, and had to 

force him into the back of the police car. Upon arrival at the police station, 

the police discovered a small bag of marijuana in Mayes’ gym shorts. 

¶10 The jury found Mayes not guilty of resisting arrest, but guilty 

of assault and possession of marijuana, a lesser-included offense of 

promoting prison contraband. Following the verdict, the jury determined 

that Mayes was released on probation at the time he committed the subject 

offenses. Additionally, the court held a hearing and determined that Mayes 

had one prior felony conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes. 

¶11 The court sentenced Mayes to a jail term of three months with 

credit for three months’ time served on the assault conviction. As for the 

possession of marijuana conviction, Mayes received a presumptive, 

repetitive (one historical prior) prison sentence of 1.75 years with 303 days 

credit for time served. 

¶12 After Mayes was convicted of the crimes in Case No. CR13-

433938, petitions were filed to revoke Mayes’ probation terms in Case Nos. 

CR12-030197 and CR12-161943. Mayes was found in automatic violation of 

his probation terms based on his felony conviction in Case No. CR13-

433938. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.8(e). In Case No. CR12-030197, Mayes’ 

probation was revoked and both counts were designated felonies. He was 

sentenced to concurrent, one year prison sentences on each count. In Case 

No. CR12-161943, Mayes’ probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 

ten days in jail. The court ordered Mayes’ sentences in Case Nos. CR12-

030197 and CR12-161943 to be served concurrently with each other, and 

consecutive to Mayes’ sentence in Case No. CR13-433938. He was also 

awarded 25 days credit for time served in each case.

Discussion

¶13 We have read and considered counsel’s brief, searched the 

entire record for reversible error and found none. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 

49, 2 P.3d at 100. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with 

the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence 

supported the finding of guilt. Mayes was present and represented by 

counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing and 

disposition, Mayes and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak.

¶14 The court properly revoked Mayes’ probation in Case Nos. 

CR12-030197 and CR12-161943 based on his conviction for a new felony 

offense in Case No. CR13-433938. A.R.S. § 13-708(C). In addition, the court 
STATE v. MAYES

Decision of the Court

5

correctly imposed presumptive prison terms3 in both probation cases to be 

served consecutively to Case No. CR13-433938 in accordance with A.R.S. § 

13-708(C). See State v. Piotrowski, 233 Ariz. 595, 599, ¶ 17, 315 P.3d 1252, 1256

(App. 2014). Given the consecutive sentences imposed however, Defendant 

could not receive credit for time served on both the sentence imposed in 

CR13-433938 and those imposed in CR12-030197 and CR12-161943. State v. 

Cuen, 158 Ariz. 86, 87-88, 761 P.2d 160, 161-62 (App. 1988). Nonetheless, 

because the State has not filed an appeal or cross-appeal on this issue, we 

do not have jurisdiction to address it. State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 286, 

792 P.2d 741, 749 (1990).

¶15 Mayes was properly also sentenced to prison for his 

conviction for possession of marijuana in Case No. CR13-433938 based on 

his conviction for assault, a violent crime involving physical injury. A.R.S. 

§§ 13-901.01(B), -901.03; State v. Givens, 206 Ariz. 186, 188, ¶ 7, 76 P.3d 457, 

459 (App. 2003). 

¶16 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Mayes’ representation in 

this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Mayes 

of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review 

reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court 

by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 

156-57 (1984). Mayes shall have thirty days from the date of this decision 

to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶17 Finding no reversible error, we affirm Mayes’ convictions and 

sentences.

 

3 Mayes was eligible for incarceration for his drug convictions in Case 

Nos. CR12-030197 and CR12-161943 based on his conviction for a new drug 

offense in Case No. CR13-433938. A.R.S. § 13-901.01(E).