Court Opinion

ID: 9912053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 17:02:15.911392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:04.076776
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                    TOMMY LEE DIXON, JR., Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0135
                              FILED 12-21-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                        No. S8015CR202200272
            The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Janelle A. McEachern, Chandler
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. DIXON
                            Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1            This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Tommy Lee
Dixon, Jr., has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, she
has found no arguable question of law and asks the court to conduct an
Anders review of the record. Dixon was given the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief pro se but has not done so. This court has reviewed the
record and has found no reversible error. Thus, Dixon’s convictions and
resulting sentences are affirmed.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            Dixon was indicted for various felony offenses committed in
December 2021 in Kingman, Arizona. A jury later found Dixon guilty of
first-degree burglary, a Class 2 felony (Count 1); disorderly conduct, a Class
6 felony (Count 2); discharging a firearm at a residence, a Class 2 felony
(Count 3); and misconduct involving weapons, a Class 4 felony (Count 4).
As to counts one, two and three, the jury also found the State had proven
the alleged aggravators of physical, emotional and financial harm to the
victim.

¶3            At a March 2023 sentencing, the court considered Dixon’s
mental health and medical history as a mitigating factor. Given his prior
criminal history, Dixon was sentenced as a Category 3 non-dangerous but
repetitive offender to prison terms of 28 years for Count 1; 4.5 years for
Count 2; 28 years for Count 3; and 8 years for Count 4. The sentences for
Counts 1 and 3 are consecutive to each other and the sentences for Counts
2 and 4 are concurrent to Count 1. This court has jurisdiction over Dixon’s
timely appeal under Arizona Revised Statute §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031
and -4033(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶4            The record shows that Dixon was represented by counsel at
all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical

                                      2
                             STATE v. DIXON
                            Decision of the Court

stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The
prison sentences imposed were within statutory limits, and the lack of
presentence incarceration credit was correct. And in all other respects, from
the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with
the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

                              CONCLUSION

¶5            This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon,
204 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
Accordingly, Dixon’s conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.

¶6             Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Dixon of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies
an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Dixon
has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a
pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

                                        3