State v. Wordlaw

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. ) ) RONALD DARNELL WORDLAW, ) ) Appellant. ) _________________________________ ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/28/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0926 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2006-108910-001 DT The Honorable Lisa Ann Vandenberg, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Thomas Baird, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix 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 Ronald Darnell Wordlaw us that, after searching the entire record, he 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. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Defendant was charged by indictment with taking the identity of another, a class 4 felony. The following evidence was presented at trial.1 ¶3 Defendant was questioned while in custody regarding an unrelated bank fraud investigation. Defendant admitted to having various forms of identification in his hotel room that were not his own. Defendant signed a consent to search form, and he accompanied Detective C.B. of the Phoenix Police Department and Agent S.H. of the F.B.I. to his hotel room. Defendant turned over possession of various forms of identification and credit cards in the name of the victim, D.S. At trial, D.S. testified 1 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 most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all inferences against defendant. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989) (citation omitted). 2 that the identification and credit cards belonged to him. He also testified that he did not give defendant permission to possess the items. ¶4 At trial, Detective C.B. testified that defendant said he had the identification in order to use it for bank fraud. Agent S.H. also testified that defendant definitely was talking about [the identification] in terms of fraud . . . . ¶5 A jury convicted defendant as charged. The trial court found that sentenced court defendant him to credited incarceration. ten had two years defendant Defendant prior felony with timely 291 and Additionally, imprisonment. convictions the days appealed his of presentence conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶6 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. was adequately So far as the record reveals, defendant represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory 3 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. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. CONCLUSION ¶7 We affirm the conviction and sentence. /s/ _____________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, 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.