NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW SCOTT LAYMAN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0427

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-158596-002

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Colby Mills

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix

By Kathryn L. Petroff

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. LAYMAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Patricia K. Norris

joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 A jury convicted Matthew Scott Layman of second-degree 

burglary, a Class 3 felony. At sentencing, Layman stipulated to having 

one historical prior felony conviction, which subjected him to an enhanced 

sentencing range. The superior court then sentenced him to a term of five 

years' imprisonment and awarded 210 days of presentence incarceration 

credit. 

¶2 We have jurisdiction over Layman's timely appeal pursuant 

to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised 

Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2014), 13-4031 (2014) and -4033(A)(1) 

(2014).1

DISCUSSION

¶3 Layman argues his stipulation to an historical prior felony 

conviction was not made knowingly and voluntarily because the superior 

court failed to inform him that he was giving up his right to be 

represented by counsel at any hearing related to the prior conviction. 

Because Layman failed to object at trial, we review only for fundamental 

error. See State v. Morales, 215 Ariz. 59, 61, ¶ 10, 157 P.3d 479, 481 (2007). 

¶4 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.6 provides that 

before the court accepts a defendant's admission of a prior conviction, it 

must engage in a colloquy with the defendant pursuant to Rule 17.2. See 

State v. Geeslin, 221 Ariz. 574, 578, ¶ 13, 212 P.3d 912, 916 (App. 2009), 

vacated in part on other grounds, 223 Ariz. 553, 554, ¶ 1, 225 P.3d 1129, 1130 

(2010); see also Morales, 215 Ariz. at 60, ¶ 1, 157 P.3d at 480. As part of the 

 

1 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute's current version.
STATE v. LAYMAN

Decision of the Court

3

Rule 17.2 colloquy, the court must ensure, on the record, that the 

defendant understands "the constitutional rights which [he or she]

foregoes by [admitting the prior conviction], including his or her right to 

counsel if he or she is not represented by counsel." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.2(c)

(emphasis added).

¶5 It is undisputed that Layman was represented by counsel at 

the sentencing hearing, and as Rule 17.2(c) reflects, "[i]t is the established 

law of this state that a court need not advise a defendant of his right to an 

attorney when he is already represented by one." State v. Mancini, 19 Ariz. 

App. 358, 359, 507 P.2d 697, 698 (1973); see also State v. Munoz, 25 Ariz. 

App. 350, 351, 543 P.2d 471, 472 (App. 1975) (noting the holding of Mancini

was expressly incorporated into Rule 17.2(c)). Although Layman argues 

the record does not demonstrate he "affirmatively understood that he 

would continue to be provided with an attorney at a subsequent 'trial' on 

his prior," he does not argue he was ignorant of his right to counsel, nor 

does he point to anything in the record that causes us to question whether 

he understood his right to counsel.

CONCLUSION

¶6 We affirm Layman's conviction and sentence.2

 

2 After reviewing the State's answering brief, defense counsel moved 

to withdraw the opening brief to allow Layman to file a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 

P.2d 878 (1969). We deny this motion.