Court Opinion

ID: 9867786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 17:04:13.897543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:47.556349
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   JESSE TAYLOR VAVAGES, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0438
                               FILED 9-26-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2020-105699-001
                 The Honorable Michael C. Blair, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Dawnese Hustad
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. VAVAGES
                             Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1             Jesse Taylor Vavages appeals his convictions and sentences
for theft of means of transportation and unlawful flight from a law
enforcement vehicle. Vavages’ counsel has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969), advising this court that, after reviewing the record, she was unable
to discover any arguable question of law to raise on appeal. Counsel
requests that this court independently review the record for fundamental
error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this
court reviews the entire record for reversible error). Vavages was given the
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm Vavages’ convictions and sentences.

                  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2           On October 23, 2019, the victim discovered his 2005 Dodge
Ram pick-up truck had been stolen from his driveway sometime during the
night. The victim contacted the Chandler Police Department to report the
theft. The stolen truck was equipped with an inactive Lo-Jack system,
which the victim activated to assist the police in their investigation.

¶3            The next day, Chandler police officers responded to a Lo-Jack
“hit” on the stolen truck at a convenience store near Arizona Avenue and
Riggs Road. Officers pulled directly behind the stolen vehicle and observed
a Native American male, later identified as Vavages’ cousin Travis James,
putting air in the front, driver’s-side tire. An officer from the Chandler
police department got out of his patrol car with his gun drawn and told
James, “[S]top, police, don’t move.” The pick-up truck began pulling away
from the parking lot, however, and James ran after it, jumping in the back
as it moved.

¶4            Officers, while assisted by helicopter back-up, followed the
truck onto the Gila River Indian Reservation until it came to a stop outside
a residence on the reservation.

                                        2
                           STATE v. VAVAGES
                           Decision of the Court

¶5            Police officers from Chandler and the Gila River Police
Department set up a perimeter around the residence, and James1 and his
brother, Emmett James, exited the house voluntarily.2       With the
homeowner’s permission, police searched the house, and found Vavages
inside one of the bedrooms.

¶6           Police later obtained a copy of surveillance video from the
convenience store and used the video, stills from the video, and body-worn
camera footage to identify Vavages and Travis James as the individuals in
possession of the stolen pick-up truck. Initially, the surveillance showed
Travis James in the driver’s seat and Vavages in the passenger seat.
However, Travis James was outside the vehicle when officers first pulled
behind the truck, prompting Vavages to switch to the driver’s seat and
drive away.

¶7             On January 12, 2021, the State indicted Vavages on two
counts: Count 1, theft of means of transportation, a class 3 felony, and Count
2, unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony. The trial
court empaneled a jury of twelve plus three alternates on July 26, 2022.

¶8            The jury found Vavages guilty as charged on both counts.
The trial court found Vavages had two historical prior felony convictions
and sentenced him to a minimum term of ten years’ imprisonment in the
Arizona Department of Corrections on Count 1 and a concurrent,
presumptive term of five years’ imprisonment on Count 2. Vavages
received credit for 93 days of presentence incarceration.

¶9            Vavages timely filed his notice of appeal, and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and
Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A).

                               DISCUSSION

¶10          We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and
find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The
evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdicts, and

1     Travis James later pled guilty to theft of means of transportation and
was placed on probation for three years. As a term of his probation, he was
ordered to serve six months in the county jail, with credit for 176 days’
served.

2     Both Travis James’ and Emmett James’ fingerprints were found on
broken glass from the stolen pick-up truck at the scene of the theft.

                                      3
                            STATE v. VAVAGES
                            Decision of the Court

the sentences were within the statutory limits. Vavages was represented by
counsel at all stages of the proceedings, was present at all critical stages,
and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. The proceedings
were conducted in compliance with Vavages’ constitutional and statutory
rights and conformed to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶11           Upon the filing of this decision, Vavages’ counsel shall inform
him of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no
further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue that may be
appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Vavages has thirty
days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per
motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

                               CONCLUSION

¶12           Vavages’ convictions and sentences are affirmed.

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

                                         4