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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARLANDIS WESLEY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0792 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017-001601-002

The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

The Stavris Law Firm PLLC, Scottsdale

By Christopher Stavris

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 1-31-2019
STATE v. WESLEY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Arlandis Wesley appeals his convictions and sentences for 

conspiracy, burglary, kidnapping, armed robbery, and misconduct 

involving weapons. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

verdicts. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509 ¶ 93 (2013). In May 2014, D.D. and 

his friend, J.S., rented a home in Glendale, Arizona. D.D.’s girlfriend L.S. 

and their one-year-old son A.D. lived there also. J.S. moved his large gun 

safe into the home’s garage. D.D. heard from a neighbor about a theft in the 

area and installed an alarm system and surveillance cameras. 

¶3 On the night of May 6, L.S. went out to dinner and a movie 

with her sister, C.S., and C.S.’s daughter, M.S. D.D. went to sleep with A.D. 

in J.S.’s bedroom so that L.S., C.S., and M.S. could sleep in the master 

bedroom when they arrived home. L.S., C.S., and M.S. arrived home around 

1:00 a.m. on May 7, and L.S. activated the alarm system before they went to 

sleep in the master bedroom. 

¶4 Around 6:30 a.m., a red Toyota Camry parked in front of 

D.D.’s house, and Wesley, Arthur Meeds, and Antonio Yanez exited the car 

and walked toward the house. The three men met up with a fourth man

armed with a gun, Eric Boozer, and they entered the home through an 

Arcadia door.

¶5 D.D. was awakened by a “burning” and “stinging” sensation 

to his head. He saw a person wearing “pantyhose” over his face and felt 

Meeds putting pressure on his back. In a “deep, raspy voice,” Meeds told

D.D., “Get up . . . I’m going to kill you. I want the money. I want the power. 

I got three of my partners in here with me. We’re going to get it.” At that 

point, D.D. “felt a gun put to the back of [his] head,” and A.D. woke up 

crying. Knowing that the door to the garage was alarmed, D.D. told Meeds 
STATE v. WESLEY

Decision of the Court

3

that he had money in the garage and to follow him, intending to set off the 

alarm and alert the police. 

¶6 As Meeds and Boozer walked D.D. down the hall, D.D. “saw 

a couple more people” in the master bedroom. He also noticed that the 

hallway closet had been “torn apart,” items had been scattered “all over the 

place,” and the entertainment system and television had been taken off the 

wall. Further, he noticed “a little hole” near the lock on a window. Around 

6:40 a.m., D.D. opened the door to the garage and entered with Meeds 

pointing a gun at him. As soon as they entered the garage, the alarm 

activated and initially made a beeping sound. D.D. knew that if he did not 

deactivate the alarm within ten seconds that it would create a “crazy, 

ridiculous noise” and also contact the police. After the ten seconds passed, 

a “siren noise” came on. Meeds made D.D. turn the alarm off and then told 

D.D. to open the safe in the garage.

¶7 Although the safe belonged to J.S., D.D. had previously seen 

J.S. open it. He thought he knew the combination but was not able to open 

it. After D.D. failed to open the safe, Boozer said, “Maybe his son will help 

him open it. If not, we’ll cut his fingers off.” Meeds told Boozer to get A.D. 

and pointed the gun at D.D.’s head and said, “This is your last chance . . . If 

you don’t open this [] safe, I’m going to blow your head off.” Boozer then 

returned to the garage with A.D., and the men laid D.D. on the floor while 

Boozer tried to open the safe. Wesley entered the garage and informed 

Meeds that D.D. had a safe in his bedroom. As Meeds started to take D.D. 

to the bedroom, Wesley attempted to open the safe in the garage. 

¶8 During this time, Yanez woke up L.S. and C.S. by stating, 

“Wake up. Wake up. We are the police.” L.S. attempted to get up to retrieve 

A.D., but Yanez slammed her down on the bed and said, “If you get up, we 

will shoot you.” L.S. and C.S.’s hands were zip-tied behind their backs and 

then laid face down on the bed. M.S. remained asleep during these acts. 

¶9 After reaching the bedroom, Meeds told D.D. to open the safe 

in the closet. At this point, L.S. and C.S. saw that D.D. had “blood gushing 

on the side of his face.” D.D. noticed that a wire was sticking out of the safe, 

and his attempts to open it were unsuccessful. Meeds then told D.D., “You

better stop [mess]ing around and hurry up.” During this exchange, Meeds 

had lifted his mask above his face, and D.D. saw his face. After further 

unsuccessful attempts to open the safe, Meeds took D.D. back to J.S.’s 

bedroom, laid him down on the bed, zip-tied his hands and feet, placed a

mirror on top of D.D., and zip-tied D.D. to the mirror. Meeds told D.D., 

“You know if we don’t find nothing in here . . . I’m going to kill you. I’m 
STATE v. WESLEY

Decision of the Court

4

going to kill you.” Meeds also stated, “If we don’t find nothing, we are 

going to take their I.D.’s and we are going to find and look for them and 

come back.” Then one of the men took L.S.’s passport out of her purse. D.D. 

overheard the men talking about using his Cadillac Escalade in the 

driveway to take one of the safes. 

¶10 Officer Joseph Pinda responded to the alarm call, and he 

arrived at the home around 7:00 a.m. He noticed D.D.’s Escalade parked in 

front of the house with the engine running, and he pulled up next to the 

driver-side window. The driver-side window lowered, and Officer Pinda 

saw a black male who appeared nervous. Officer Pinda asked the man what 

was going on, and the man replied, “I live here.” Then Officer Pinda asked 

for the house’s address, and the man replied, “[C]’mon man . . . I only lived 

here for a month.” The man got out of the Escalade, left the car running, 

and returned to the house through the front door. At that point, Officer 

Pinda called for backup and waited. 

¶11 D.D. heard Boozer inform his accomplices that the police 

were outside. D.D. then asked Meeds to let him go so that he could tell the 

police that everything was fine in the house. Meeds removed D.D.’s zip ties 

and attempted to clean the blood from D.D.’s head. Meeds placed a robe 

over D.D. and told him to tell the police that everything was fine in the 

house. Before D.D. went outside, the men noticed that D.D.’s feet were 

covered in blood. After cleaning D.D.’s feet, Meeds said, “If you don’t want 

nothing to happen to your [] family, you better get out there, tell them 

everything’s fine.” 

¶12 Around 7:10 a.m., D.D. went out the front door and walked 

toward Officer Pinda, who noticed that D.D.’s head was bleeding. D.D. told 

Officer Pinda that four men were in his home doing an “invasion.” During 

this time, L.S. “heard silence,” got out of the bed, looked down the hallway, 

and saw that the area was “clear.” While C.S. remained in the master 

bedroom with A.D. and M.S., L.S. went into the next room and exited 

through the room’s window with her hands still zip-tied. 

¶13 After exiting, L.S. saw Wesley standing behind the gate on the 

west side of the house. Wesley saw L.S., turned back, looked over the gate, 

and then walked toward the Camry. Officer Pinda ordered Wesley to stop. 

Wesley turned to Officer Pinda and stated, “I don’t know what’s going on,” 

got into the Camry, and drove off. L.S. followed Wesley out of the gate and 

told Officer Pinda to stop Wesley because he was one of the home invaders. 

Officer Pinda informed other officers to pursue the Camry, and they did so. 
STATE v. WESLEY

Decision of the Court

5

A SWAT team arrived and entered the house, saw no other suspects, and 

brought out C.S., A.D., and M.S. 

¶14 Police officers pursued Wesley, who drove recklessly through 

stop signs and red lights. He also drove directly at an officer before driving 

on the sidewalk to get around the officer. The officers lost track of Wesley. 

Around this time, officers had caught Meeds and Yanez who had fled on 

foot, but neither person was armed when arrested. Meeds had two of D.D.’s 

watches in his possession, and L.S.’s passport was found near a dumpster

that Meeds had passed while fleeing. 

¶15 A few hours later, a homeowner along Wesley’s escape route 

found a gun in his front yard and called the police. Officers retrieved the 

gun, which had blood on it. The gun was loaded, had a bullet in the 

chamber, and the hammer was cocked. A detective learned that Wesley was 

the registered owner of the red Toyota Camry. One of D.D.’s neighbors had 

previously seen that car, or a similar car, driving around the neighborhood 

and thought that the previous car’s occupants were “casing” D.D.’s house.

The police located and arrested Wesley twelve days after the home 

invasion. 

¶16 In March 2017, the State indicted Wesley and Meeds, his 

co-defendant, with (1) one count of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, 

aggravated assault, first-degree burglary, kidnapping, misconduct 

involving weapons, and assisting a criminal street gang, a class 2 felony; 

(2) one count of first-degree burglary, a class 2 felony; (3) three counts of 

kidnapping, class 2 dangerous felonies; (4) two counts of kidnapping, class 

2 dangerous felonies and dangerous crimes against children (“DCAC”); (5) 

three counts of armed robbery, class 2 dangerous felonies; (6) one count of 

misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 dangerous felony; (7) one count of 

assisting a criminal street gang, a class 3 felony; and (8) one count of 

unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony. Before trial, 

the trial court dismissed the assisting a criminal street gang charge. The 

State then submitted an amended indictment that deleted the street gang 

charge and agreed that the misconduct involving weapons charge should 

be severed from the other counts.

¶17 Wesley and Meeds were tried by a jury, and after the State 

presented its evidence and rested, Wesley moved for judgment of acquittal, 

which the trial court denied. The jury subsequently convicted Wesley and 

Meeds of conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary; first-degree burglary; 

aggravated assault; kidnapping D.D.; kidnapping L.S.; kidnapping C.S.; 

kidnapping A.D., who they found was under 15 years old; armed robbery 
STATE v. WESLEY

Decision of the Court

6

of D.D.; armed robbery of L.S.; and attempted armed robbery of C.S. They 

were found not guilty for kidnapping M.S. Wesley was also found guilty 

for unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. Thereafter, the court 

addressed Meeds and Wesley’s misconduct involving weapons charges. 

The State provided evidence that Meeds and Wesley were convicted felons, 

and that nothing showed that their possession rights had been restored. The 

jury found both men guilty of misconduct involving weapons. The jury also

found numerous aggravating circumstances for both men. 

¶18 The court sentenced Wesley to concurrent terms of 15.75 

years’ imprisonment each for his convictions for conspiracy to commit 

first-degree burglary; first-degree burglary; kidnappings of L.S., C.S., and 

D.D.; and armed robberies of D.D. and L.S. The court also sentenced him to

concurrent terms of 11.25 years’ imprisonment for his conviction for 

attempted armed robbery of C.S. and 10 years’ imprisonment for his 

conviction for misconduct involving weapons. The court sentenced him to 

a consecutive term of 13 years’ imprisonment for his conviction for 

kidnapping A.D. and a consecutive term of 4 years’ imprisonment for his 

conviction for unlawfully fleeing from a law enforcement vehicle.

DISCUSSION

¶19 Wesley agrees that the State presented sufficient evidence to 

convict him of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, but 

nevertheless maintains that the State did not present sufficient evidence on 

the remaining charges to withstand his motion for judgment of acquittal 

under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. We review de novo a trial 

court’s ruling on a Rule 20 motion. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562 ¶ 15 

(2011). “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Id. at ¶ 16 (quoting State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 66 (1990)). Sufficient 

evidence upon which a reasonable jury can convict may be direct or 

circumstantial. Id. A judgment of acquittal is appropriate only when “there 

is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

20(a)(1). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh 

conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. BuccheriBianca, 233 Ariz. 324, 334 ¶ 38 (App. 2013). 

¶20 “A person may be guilty of an offense committed by such 

person’s own conduct or by the conduct of another for which such person 

is criminally accountable[.]” A.R.S. § 13–302. A person is criminally 

accountable for the conduct of another person if he is “an accomplice of 
STATE v. WESLEY

Decision of the Court

7

such other person in the commission of an offense including any offense 

that is a natural and probable or reasonably foreseeable consequence of the 

offense for which the person was an accomplice.” A.R.S. § 13–303(A)(3). 

Under A.R.S. § 13–301(2), an “accomplice” is a person who, with the intent 

to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense, “[a]ids, counsels, 

agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing 

an offense.” 

1. Conspiracy to Commit First-Degree Burglary

¶21 Under A.R.S. § 13–1003(A), a person commits conspiracy by 

agreeing with another person that somebody would commit an offense, the 

person intended to promote or aid the commission of the offense, and one 

of the parties commits an overt act in furtherance of the offense. “Criminal 

conspiracy need not be, and usually cannot be, proved by direct evidence. 

The common scheme or plan may be inferred from circumstantial 

evidence.” State v. Fischer, 219 Ariz. 408, 420 ¶ 46 (App. 2008) (quoting State 

v. Arredondo, 155 Ariz. 314, 317 (1987)). Here, the evidence showed that 

Wesley parked in front of the house in his Camry with Meeds and Yanez. 

The three men then met Boozer and entered through the home’s Arcadia 

door, with Boozer holding a gun. As such, a jury could reasonably find that 

Wesley conspired to commit first-degree burglary.

2. First-Degree Burglary

¶22 A person commits first-degree burglary if such person or an 

accomplice enters and remains unlawfully in or on a residence with the 

intent to commit any theft or felony therein, and such person or accomplice 

knowingly possessed a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument in the 

course of committing any theft or any felony. A.R.S. §§ 13–1507, –1508. The 

evidence showed that Wesley and the other intruders unlawfully entered 

and remained in D.D.’s home. They also attempted to open multiple safes 

and eventually left the house with D.D.’s watches and L.S.’s passport. The 

evidence also showed that at least one gun was used during the burglary 

and subsequent robberies. Thus, sufficient evidence exists from which a 

jury could reasonably find that Wesley committed first-degree burglary.

3. Completed and Attempted Armed Robberies

¶23 Under A.R.S. § 13–1902, a person commits robbery if such 

person takes property of another from that person’s immediate presence

and against that person’s will, and such person threatens or uses force 

against the person with the intent to force surrender of the property or to 

prevent resistance to taking or keeping the property. A person commits 
STATE v. WESLEY

Decision of the Court

8

armed robbery if such person commits robbery while armed with a deadly 

weapon or a simulated deadly weapon. A.R.S. § 13–1904. Wesley and the 

other intruders were armed with at least one gun when they zip-tied L.S. 

and D.D., and circumstantial evidence showed that they had injured D.D.’s 

head. The men also took L.S.’s passport and D.D.’s watches against the 

victims’ permission. Thus, a jury reasonably could find that Wesley 

committed armed robbery related to L.S. and D.D. 

¶24 A person commits attempted armed robbery if the person 

takes “any step in a course of conduct planned to culminate” in the 

commission of armed robbery. A.R.S. § 13–1001(A)(2). Wesley and the other 

intruders were armed when they zip-tied C.S., but they were unsuccessful 

in finding or taking any property from her. As such, a jury reasonably could 

find that Wesley attempted to commit armed robbery of C.S.

4. Kidnappings

¶25 A person commits kidnapping by knowingly restraining 

another person with the intent to aid in the commission of a felony or place 

the victim or a third person in reasonable apprehension of imminent 

physical injury to the victim or the third person. A.R.S. § 13–1304(A)(3), (4). 

A person commits a DCAC kidnapping when such person kidnaps a child 

under 15 years old and such person’s conduct or an accomplice’s conduct 

was focused on, directed against, aimed at, or targeted the child. A.R.S. 

§ 13–705(D). Here, D.D. was restrained when the intruders zip-tied his 

limbs, zip-tied him to a mirror, and forced him to stay on a bed while they 

took items from the home, such as D.D.’s watches. L.S. and C.S. were 

zip-tied and forced to stay on a bed while Wesley and the other intruders 

attempted to take items from the home and safes. A.D. was under 15 years 

old, had been moved against his or his parents’ wishes, and had received a 

threat that his fingers would be cut off if D.D. did not open a safe. Therefore, 

a jury reasonably could find that Wesley had kidnapped D.D., L.S., C.S., 

and A.D., with A.D.’s kidnapping constituting a DCAC.

5. Misconduct Involving Weapons

¶26 A person commits misconduct involving weapons by 

knowingly possessing a deadly weapon while such person is a prohibited 

possessor. A.R.S. § 13–3102(A)(4). Under A.R.S. § 13–3101(A)(7)(b), a 

“prohibited possessor” means any person that has been convicted of a 

felony and whose civil right to possess or carry a gun has not been restored. 

“Possession” of a gun may be actual or constructive. State v. Gonsalves, 231 

Ariz. 521, 523 ¶ 9 (App. 2013). A person “who exercises dominion or control 
STATE v. WESLEY

Decision of the Court

9

over property has constructive possession of it even if it is not in his 

physical possession.” Id. (quoting State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa, 192 Ariz. 360, 

363 ¶ 13 (App. 1998)). Therefore, “two or more persons may jointly possess 

a prohibited object; possession need not be ‘exclusive, immediate and 

personal.’” Id. (quoting State v. Carroll, 111 Ariz. 216, 218 (1974)). If a person 

knows that his accomplice possesses a gun and the gun is essential to 

committing the offense, then the person is deemed to have jointly possessed 

the gun. Id. at 524 ¶ 13, 525 ¶ 19.

¶27 The evidence showed that Wesley and the other intruders 

entered the home with the intent to commit armed robbery and that at least 

Boozer carried a gun at the time. The evidence also showed that Meeds 

pointed a gun at D.D. multiple times. The evidence further showed that 

Wesley was a convicted felon, and no evidence showed that his civil right 

to possess a gun had been restored. As such, a jury could reasonably find 

that Wesley had committed misconduct involving a weapon.

CONCLUSION

¶28 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.