Court Opinion

ID: 9915087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 17:02:10.35726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:05.898014
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                       RYAN LYNN CLARK, Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CR 23-0009
                                FILED 1-4-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR202200072
            The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Jill L. Evans, Attorney at Law, Flagstaff
By Jill L. Evans
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. CLARK
                            Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined.

G A S S, Chief Judge:

¶1             Ryan Lynn Clark filed this appeal in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969).
Clark’s counsel searched the record and identified no arguable, non-
frivolous question of law. Counsel then asked this court to review the
record for fundamental error. This court gave Clark an opportunity to file
a supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not. After a thorough review
of the record, we affirm Clark’s conviction and sentence.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            This court views the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolves all reasonable inferences against
Clark. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3            On January 2, 2022, a witness found a woman shot to death
by the side of a road in Bullhead City. The shell casings and bullets at the
scene were Nosler brand 9-millimeter Luger hollow point ammunition.

¶4             The victim had been in a dating relationship with Clark since
October 2021. On January 1, 2022, the Medford, Oregon jail released the
victim after Clark posted her bond. Clark and the victim then drove from
Medford, Oregon to Bullhead City, stopping along the way at a consumer
electronics store in Bakersfield, California. At 2:15 a.m. on January 2, a video
from a Bullhead City fire station showed a vehicle similar to Clark’s rental
car driving near where a witness found the victim’s body.

¶5            On January 6, police conducted a traffic stop and took Clark
into custody. Police officers searched Clark’s car and hotel room and found
a semi-automatic handgun and Nosler ammunition matching the shell
casings and bullets found at the crime scene. Nosler ammunition is rarely
used with semi-automatic handguns like the one found in the hotel room.
Nosler manufactures its ammunition in Bend, Oregon. And Nosler only
sells its ammunition in that region. Clark’s statements in interactions with
police and during his arraignment show he initially did not understand the

                                       2
                             STATE v. CLARK
                            Decision of the Court

nature of the charges against him. The record, however, suggests drug use
may have caused his early apparent confusion, and nothing later in the
record raises any concerns about Clark’s competence.

¶6            The State charged Clark with, and a jury convicted him of,
first-degree murder. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1105.A.1, -1101. The superior court
sentenced Clark to the mandatory sentence of natural life and gave him a
334-day       presentence        incarceration  credit.    See     A.R.S.
§§ 13-701, -702, -751, -752, -801.

¶7             This court has jurisdiction over Clark’s timely appeal under
article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 13-4031 and
13-4033.A.1.

                                ANALYSIS

¶8              This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and
thoroughly reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at
300; State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

¶9             The superior court conducted all the proceedings in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Clark was
present for, and represented by counsel at, all critical stages of the
proceedings. See State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977); State v. Conner, 163
Ariz. 97, 104 (1990). The jury was properly comprised of twelve jurors and
two alternates. See A.R.S. §§ 21-102.A. The record shows no evidence of jury
misconduct. The superior court properly instructed the jury on the elements
of the charged offense, the State’s burden of proof, and Clark’s presumed
innocence. Additionally, the superior court gave Clark the opportunity to
speak at sentencing and imposed the statutorily mandated sentence. See
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10(c)(1); A.R.S. § 13-752.A.

                              CONCLUSION

¶10          Because the record shows no fundamental error, we affirm
Clark’s conviction and sentence.

¶11            Defense counsel’s obligation to represent Clark in this appeal
has ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Clark of the
outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, defense
counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to our supreme court by
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

                                      3
                             STATE v. CLARK
                            Decision of the Court

¶12            Clark has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if
he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim.
P. 31.21. This court, on its own motion, also grants Clark 30 days from the
date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.
See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20.

                         AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                         FILED: AA

                                         4