Court Opinion

ID: 9408159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 18:05:46.994575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.194817
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                 JOHN EDWARD RIGGINS, III, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0225
                               FILED 7-11-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2017-147400-001
              The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Cory Engle
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. RIGGINS
                             Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1             John Edward Riggins III (“Riggins”) appeals his conviction
for forgery and the resulting sentence. Counsel for Riggins filed a brief per
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, counsel found no
arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Riggins was permitted to
file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks this Court to
search the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988);
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the
record, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            In October 2017, police arrested Riggins for presented a
forged check at a Wells Fargo Bank branch. The State charged Riggins with
one count of forgery, a Class 4 felony. Before trial, the State alleged the
forgery was committed while Riggins was on release for another offense.
The State also alleged that Riggins had three prior felony convictions. The
State further alleged that Riggins had committed other offenses for which
he had not yet been convicted but for which his sentence could be
enhanced. And the State filed to enhance the sentence with various
aggravating facts.

¶3            After a three-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict.
Rather than conduct an aggravation trial, the parties stipulated that Riggins
was on felony probation at the time of the forgery offense. But the parties
did conduct a trial on alleged prior convictions, with the superior court
ultimately finding that Riggins had four prior felony convictions. The court
sentenced Riggins to 10 years in prison, with credit for 1,166 he had already
spent in custody. Riggins appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

                                        2
                           STATE v. RIGGINS
                           Decision of the Court

                               DISCUSSION

¶4           We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We
find none.

¶5             Riggins was present and represented by counsel at all critical
stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects the superior court
afforded Riggins all his constitutional and statutory rights and conducted
the proceedings following the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
court held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial
was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The sentence imposed falls
within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for
presentence incarceration.

                              CONCLUSION

¶6            Riggins’ conviction and sentence are affirmed. After the filing
of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Riggins’
representation in this appeal will end after informing Riggins of the
outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review
reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court
by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).

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

                                        3