Court Opinion

ID: 9839856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 16:04:24.510475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:49.215127
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

             GERALD DARNELL RICHARDSON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0420
                               FILED 9-14-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2012-119295-001
                 The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Bain & Lauritano, PLC, Glendale
By Amy E. Bain
Counsel for Appellant
                          STATE v. RICHARDSON
                            Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1              Defendant Gerald Darnell Richardson appeals his convictions
and sentences for one count of armed robbery, two counts of assault, and
two counts of kidnapping. Defense counsel filed a brief pursuant to 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. Richardson was
given 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 convictions and resolving all
reasonable inferences against Richardson, see State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289,
293 (1989). Having reviewed the entire record, we affirm.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             Alerted by a chime at the storefront door, the assistant
manager of a video game store turned to greet a prospective customer.
What he saw was a man wearing a black bandana over the lower half of his
face and brandishing, in his right hand, a silver, “shiny” gun. As the robber
entered the store and approached the counter, he pulled the bandana from
his face, “tuck[ed]” the gun in his pants, warned the assistant manager and
the other store employee, a “game advisor,” not to “push [any] buttons,”
and demanded all the money in the cash register and a gaming console.
After handing over the money, the assistant manager stated that the gaming
consoles were stored in a back room, so the robber ordered the assistant
manager and the game advisor to lead him to the storage area.

¶3            Once in the back room, the robber demanded a specific,
“more expensive” gaming console. The employees complied. When the
robber had the cash and the gaming console, he ordered the employees to
remain in the back room and then left the store through the front door. The
assistant manager then called the police to report.

                                      2
                         STATE v. RICHARDSON
                           Decision of the Court

¶4           The ensuing police investigation eventually focused on
Richardson. The State charged Richardson with one count of armed
robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of kidnapping, and
one count of misconduct involving weapons. The State also alleged
numerous aggravating factors and that Richardson had prior felony
convictions and was on probation at the time of the offenses.

¶5            At trial, the assistant store manager and the game advisor
identified Richardson as the person who had committed the robbery.
Although both employees avoided making eye contact with the robber,
they explained that they could identify him because they carefully
reviewed the store’s surveillance video after the robbery. Apart from
presenting the employees’ accounts of the robbery and identification
testimony, the State submitted as an exhibit the gaming store’s surveillance
video of the robbery, which was played for the jury.

¶6            At the close of evidence, Richardson moved for judgment of
acquittal under Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 20, which the
trial court summarily denied. The court’s final instructions to the jury
included Richardson’s requests for lesser-included offense instructions on
robbery and misdemeanor assault.

¶7           After a six-day trial, the jury convicted Richardson of one
count of armed robbery, two counts of misdemeanor assault, and two
counts of kidnapping, but acquitted him of both counts of aggravated
assault and misconduct involving weapons.

¶8            At the sentencing hearing, the State presented evidence that
Richardson had at least two prior felony convictions and committed the
present offenses while on felony probation. The trial court sentenced
Richardson to concurrent, presumptive terms of 15.75 years imprisonment
for the armed robbery and kidnapping counts, and four months in jail (time
served) for the assault counts. Because Richardson violated his probation
by committing these offenses, presumptive terms were the minimum
sentences allowed by law. See A.R.S. § 13-708(C).

¶9            After sentencing, Richardson’s attorney failed to file a notice
of appeal before withdrawing. Years later, Richardson successfully moved
for post-conviction relief under Rule 32.1(f) and obtained leave to file a new
notice of appeal.

¶10           Richardson timely appealed following that order. We have
jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21, 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

                                      3
                          STATE v. RICHARDSON
                            Decision of the Court

                                DISCUSSION

¶11            Our review of the record shows no reversible error requiring
remand. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects that Richardson
was represented by counsel and present at all critical stages. State v. Conner,
163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977). The jury
appropriately consisted of 12 jurors in accordance with A.R.S. § 21-102(A).
The court properly instructed the jury of Richardson’s presumption of
innocence and right not to testify, the State’s burden of proof, and the
elements of the charges Richardson faced. Nothing during Richardson’s
trial or sentencing hearing unfairly prejudiced him or deprived him of any
constitutional protections.

                               CONCLUSION

¶12            We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and
find none. Accordingly, we affirm Richardson’s convictions and sentences.
After this decision’s filing, defense counsel’s obligations in this appeal will
end. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Richardson 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, Richardson 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.

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

                                         4