Court Opinion

ID: 9388317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 16:03:48.917083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:19.786373
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                    SHAWN PATRICK KYLE, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0341
                               FILED 4-20-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. V1300CR201680109
           The Honorable Thomas K. Kelly, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Willison Law PC, Prescott
By Stephanie Ann Willison
Counsel for Appellant
                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1             Shawn Patrick Kyle appeals his conviction of misconduct
involving weapons and the resulting sentence. Kyle’s counsel 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, she found no
arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Kyle was allowed 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 Kyle’s conviction and sentence.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            In February 2016, police officers tried to execute an arrest
warrant for Kyle. Kyle was seated in a parked car, which he refused to exit.
The officers sent a canine into the car to make Kyle exit. Kyle responded by
picking up an axe inside the car and striking the canine. Kyle had prior
felony convictions that prohibited him from legally possessing a deadly
weapon.

¶3            The State charged Kyle with two counts of misconduct
involving weapons, both Class 4 felonies. Before the trial, the State
dismissed the second count. The State presented testimony from four police
officers, and Kyle testified.

¶4             The jury convicted Kyle. In the aggravation phase, the jury
found that Kyle committed the offense while released on bond for another
case. The court considered Kyle’s mitigation evidence of family support. It
sentenced Kyle to the presumptive term of ten years’ imprisonment, plus
the statutorily required two years’ imprisonment for the aggravating factor.
The court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to Kyle’s 2014 case and
concurrently with Kyle’s 2016 and 2017 cases.1 Kyle received zero

1      See V1300CR2014480531; V1300CR201680108; V1300CR201780538.

                                      2
presentence incarceration credit because the court applied Kyle’s time
served in V1300CR2014480531. Kyle appealed, and we have jurisdiction
under A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

¶5           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.

¶6             Kyle was present and represented by counsel at all critical
stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects the superior court
afforded Kyle 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 and
summarized above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Kyle’s
sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given
for presentence incarceration.

                              CONCLUSION

¶7            Kyle’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. After the filing
of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Kyle’s
representation in this appeal will end after informing Kyle 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