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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND 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

PAUL LEWIS SUMMERS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0653

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-109833-001 DT

The Honorable Jose S. Padilla, Judge

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 Reid

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SUMMERS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Paul Lewis Summers (“Appellant”) appeals his convictions

and sentences for two counts of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated 

assault, and two counts of assault. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in 

accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), 

stating he has searched the record for error but failed to identify any

arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Appellant’s counsel therefore

requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 

196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this court 

reviews the entire record for reversible error). This court allowed Appellant 

to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Appellant has not done 

so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona 

Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”)

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

1 Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm as corrected herein.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶3 On March 10, 2015, a grand jury issued an indictment

charging Appellant with Count I, armed robbery, a class two dangerous 

felony; Count II, aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony; Count 

III, armed robbery, a class two dangerous felony; Count IV, aggravated 

assault, a class three dangerous felony; Count V, assault, a class one 

 

1 We cite the current version of all applicable statutes because no 

revisions material to this decision have occurred since the date of the 

offenses.

2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 

181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994).
STATE v. SUMMERS

Decision of the Court

3

misdemeanor; and Count VI, assault, a class two misdemeanor. See A.R.S. 

§§ 13-1904, -1203, -1204.

¶4 At trial, the State presented the following evidence: On

February 28, 2015, Appellant entered a 99 Cents Only store carrying a 

backpack. Loss prevention officers, one in uniform and two in plainclothes, 

observed Appellant place batteries, flashlights, and glue in his pockets. The 

officers also observed Appellant purchase some items, but saw him leave 

the store without paying for the items in his pockets.

¶5 One of the plainclothes officers approached Appellant 

outside the store, identified himself as part of loss prevention, and asked to 

speak with Appellant about items in his pocket. The other plainclothes 

officer went outside and identified himself as a loss prevention officer. 

Appellant and the two plainclothes officers went back inside the store.

¶6 While the plainclothes officers were walking Appellant 

toward the back of the store, Appellant pulled out a “brass knuckles taser”

and tased one of the officers. Appellant then ran toward the store exit, and 

knocked over an elderly couple. The husband fell into a shelf before hitting 

the ground, and hit his leg and head.

¶7 All three loss prevention officers pursued Appellant as he ran 

from the store. The three officers were able to subdue Appellant after a few 

minutes of struggling in the parking lot. Appellant tased two of the three 

officers during the struggle. After the officers subdued Appellant and 

removed the taser from Appellant’s hand, one of the officers handcuffed 

him. Two of the officers brought Appellant inside the store, while the 

remaining officer recovered the stolen items. The store manager 

determined the value of the stolen items was $10.83.

¶8 The jury found Appellant guilty as charged of two counts of 

armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of assault.

The jury found the offenses in Counts I and II involved the discharge, use,

or threatened exhibition of a dangerous instrument, and the infliction or 

threatened infliction of serious physical injury. The jury also found the 

offenses in Counts III and IV involved the discharge, use, or threatened 

exhibition of a dangerous instrument; the infliction or threatened infliction 

of serious physical injury; and physical, emotional, or financial harm to the 

victim.
STATE v. SUMMERS

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 After finding that Appellant had two or more historical prior 

felony convictions,

3 the court sentenced Appellant to concurrent, 

presumptive terms of 15.75 years’ imprisonment for Counts I and III, and

11.25 years’ imprisonment for Counts II and IV, with credit for 194 days of 

presentence incarceration applied to each count. The court also sentenced 

Appellant to 180 days in jail for Count V and 120 days in jail for Count VI,

with credit for 194 days of presentence incarceration applied to each count.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

ANALYSIS

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, 

¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and 

supports the verdicts. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages 

of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. 

The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and 

statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

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

pertaining to Appellant’s representation in this appeal have ended. 

Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal 

and of his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue 

appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State 

v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant has 

thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro 

per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

 

3 The trial court’s October 8, 2015 amended sentencing minute entry 

indicates the specific prior felony convictions proven by the State. Number 

four, trafficking in stolen property, is listed as case number CR2002-001833-

001. The correct case number is CR2002-001883-001. Pursuant to A.R.S. 

§ 13-4036, we correct the October 8, 2015 minute entry, to reflect that the 

correct case number for the fourth prior felony conviction of trafficking in 

stolen property is CR2002-001883-001.
STATE v. SUMMERS

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶12 Appellant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. The trial 

court’s October 8, 2015 amended sentencing minute entry is corrected to 

reflect that the fourth prior felony conviction proven by the State, 

trafficking in stolen property, is CR2002-001883-001.