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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RICHARD HITCHCOCK, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0355 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2019-101127-001 

The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Lawrence S. Matthew 

Counsel for Appellant 

FILED 8-26-2021
STATE v. HITCHCOCK

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Richard Thadeus Hitchcock appeals his convictions and 

sentences for theft of means of transportation, unlawful flight from a law 

enforcement vehicle, and criminal trespass. Hitchcock’s counsel filed a brief 

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

(1969) advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Hitchcock

was granted an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona

but did not do so. Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible 

error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and 

resolving all reasonable inferences against Hitchcock, see State v. Guerra, 161 

Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). After reviewing the record, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 In January 2019, B.R. reported to law enforcement that his red 

Nissan Frontier had been stolen from his driveway. 

¶3 The next day, a Scottsdale Police Officer noticed a red truck 

driving southbound on Scottsdale Road. The truck had no license plate, an 

obscured temporary tag in the back window, and a large amount of 

unsecured wood sticking out of the bed of the truck. The officer activated 

the patrol vehicle’s emergency lights and attempted to conduct a traffic 

stop. The truck “accelerated quickly,” went off the road, and hit a large 

boulder. The driver ran from the vehicle heading west. 

¶4 A second officer was dispatched to the area and discovered 

the ignition of the truck had been “punched out,” which allowed the vehicle 

to be operated without a key. Police ran the vehicle’s identification number, 

discovered the vehicle was reported stolen, and learned that B.R. was the 

registered owner. 

¶5 K.O. was at his home—just a couple houses west of the 

accident—when he observed a male in his fenced backyard attempting to 
STATE v. HITCHCOCK

Decision of the Court

3 

climb over a wall which separated the backyard from another fenced yard 

on K.O.’s property. Not recognizing the man, K.O. called the police. 

¶6 A third officer, with his K-9, found Hitchcock hiding in the

brush in the second fenced yard on K.O.’s property. The first officer 

identified Hitchcock as the driver of the red truck.

¶7 Once notified that his truck had been found, B.R. informed 

police that, although Hitchcock was a friend of B.R.’s son, Hitchcock did 

not have permission to use the vehicle, nor did B.R.’s son have permission 

to let anyone else use the vehicle. 

¶8 Hitchcock was charged with theft of means of transportation,

a Class three felony (“Count One”); unlawful flight from a law enforcement 

vehicle, a Class five felony (“Count Two”); and criminal trespass in the first 

degree, a Class one misdemeanor (“Count Three”). 

¶9 At trial, Hitchcock moved unsuccessfully for an acquittal 

under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, and the jury convicted 

Hitchcock as charged. After an aggravation hearing, the jury found the 

State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hitchcock was on felony 

probation at the time of the commission of Counts One and Two. 

¶10 The trial court found Hitchcock had committed two prior 

non-dangerous felony offenses and sentenced him to the presumptive term 

of 11.25 years’ imprisonment for Count One; the presumptive term of 5 

years’ imprisonment for Count Two; and 6 months in county jail for Count 

Three, all running concurrently, with presentence credit for 197 days 

served. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 

Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶11 All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, 

Hitchcock was at all times represented by counsel. See State v. Conner, 163 

Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages). Hitchcock absconded 

prior to trial and was not present for the proceedings. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

9.1 (“[A] defendant’s voluntary absence waives the right to be present at 

any proceeding.”). The trial court record of jury selection does not 

demonstrate the empanelment of any biased jurors. The jury was properly 

comprised of twelve jurors, and the record shows no evidence of juror

misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102(A); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The trial court 

properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses, the 
STATE v. HITCHCOCK

Decision of the Court

4 

State’s burden of proof, and Hitchcock’s presumption of innocence.

Hitchcock was present and in custody for sentencing. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

26.9. At sentencing, Hitchcock was given an opportunity to speak, and the 

court stated on the record the evidence and materials it considered and the 

factors it found in imposing the sentences. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.10.

Additionally, the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. See 

A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -709 (as applicable). 

¶12 Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any 

prejudicial error.”). 

CONCLUSION

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

find none; therefore, we affirm Hitchcock’s convictions and sentences.

¶14 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Hitchcock’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than 

inform Hitchcock 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 (1984). On this Court’s motion, Hitchcock has 30 days from 

the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona

motion for reconsideration or petition for review.