State v. Naylor
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/01/2009 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH ) 1 CA-CR 09-0049 ) Appellee, ) DEPARTMENT A ) v. ) MEMORANDUM DECISION ) (Not for Publication - Rule 111, GREGORY WILSON NAYLOR, ) Rules of the ) Arizona Supreme Court) Appellant. ) _______________________________ ) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR1993-007099 The Honorable Randy Ellexson, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel By Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Kathryn L. Petroff, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Gregory Wilson Naylor In Propria Persona San Luis T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Gregory Wilson Naylor (defendant) that, has advised us after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has done so. ¶2 In 1993, defendant was charged with and pled guilty to three counts of theft, each a class three felony. For count one, defendant was sentenced to an aggravated term of eight years of incarceration. On counts two and three, his sentence was suspended, with probation to begin on his release from the Department of Corrections. ¶3 In 2004, while on probation, defendant was arrested in Illinois on several charges of theft. Shortly thereafter, Maricopa County Superior Court issued a bench warrant alleging defendant s incarceration probation on violations. his Illinois In charges, 2006, defendant extradited to Arizona for his probation violations. revoked defendant s probation each and suspended ordered sentence, after was The court five to years incarceration on run consecutively. This Anders appeal focuses solely on the count three suspended sentence because the sentence for count two was vacated. 2 ¶4 At the resentencing, the court revoked the grant of probation for count years incarceration. three and sentenced defendant Defendant appealed. to five Defendant argues that he was not properly credited for pre-sentence time served in Illinois. Our review of the record reveals no error. Defendant was properly credited with 943 days of presentence incarceration credit and is not entitled to credit for time served in Illinois custody on an Illinois charge. See generally Arizona v. Horrisberger, 133 Ariz. 569, 653 P.2d 26 (1982). Defendant also argues that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over him. Our review of the record reveals no error with respect to this argument. ¶5 We have read and considered counsel and defendant=s briefs and have searched the entire record error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. record reveals, defendant was adequately for reversible We find So far as the represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant=s counsel=s obligations in this appeal are at an end. 3 ¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence. /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ Philip Hall, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ Daniel A. Barker, Judge 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
