State v. West

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, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) PAUL VINCENT WEST, JR., ) ) Appellant. ) ) _________________________________ ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/21/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0889 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-124034-002 DT The Honorable Susan Brnovich, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Sharmila Roy Attorney for Appellant Laveen 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). (defendant) has advised Counsel for Paul Vincent West, Jr. us that, 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 propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). We view the facts in the light the most favorable to sustaining resolve all inferences against defendant. jury s verdict and See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). ¶3 of Defendant was charged by indictment with three counts armed robbery, class 2 dangerous felonies. The separate counts are with respect to each of three victims, arising from the same incident. The following evidence was presented at trial. ¶4 Tommy. S.M. received text messages from a former co-worker, The text messages indicated that Tommy was having car trouble and asked S.M. for help. S.M. and two of her friends, 2 V.G. and L.C., were close by, and they arrived at the apartment complex where Tommy had asked them to meet him. Shortly after they arrived, Tommy appeared and got in the vehicle and sat next to S.M. in the backseat. ¶5 Then defendant walked up to the driver window of the vehicle, pulled out a firearm, and cocked it. Defendant pressed the firearm into V.G s side, and also pointed it at L.C. While still in the backseat, Tommy pulled out a firearm and rested it on his thigh. Defendant demanded that the victims give him their stuff. Defendant took a cell phone from each victim and some money. Defendant and Tommy walked away from the scene together. ¶6 A jury convicted defendant as charged. The trial court sentenced him to three concurrent terms of sixteen years imprisonment. The court credited defendant with 119 days of presentence incarceration. convictions and sentences. Defendant We have timely appealed jurisdiction pursuant his to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (2010). ¶7 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. 3 See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings, statutory limits. 584-85, 684 P.2d and the sentences imposed were within the Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at end. ¶8 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ _____________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ DONN KESSLER, 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.