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
STATE OF ARIZONA,
GARY DEAN DIXON,
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
1 CA-CR 10-0085
(Not for Publication –
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2009-141681-001 DT
The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel,
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office
Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
G E M M I L L, Judge
filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878
(1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no
arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but
did not do so.
See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2
P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999).
For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d
668, 669 (App. 2001).
misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony, in violation of
following evidence was presented at Dixon’s trial.
At approximately 3:30 a.m. on June 23, 2009, Phoenix
Police Officers U. and H. were patrolling the area of Seventh
Avenue and Van Buren in Phoenix.
Office U. noticed Dixon on a
bicycle at the southwest corner of the intersection.
We cite to the current version of the applicable statute
because no revisions material to this decision have occurred
since the offense.
lacked any visible bike lights.
The officers attempted to make
contact with Dixon to make sure he possessed a bike light.
the officers pulled up to the southeast curb, Dixon began to
ride his bicycle eastbound against traffic.
Officer H. briefly
exited the police car and yelled for Dixon to stop, but Dixon
eastbound in the police car across Seventh Avenue on Van Buren
as Dixon turned into a McDonald’s parking lot.
Dixon rode his
bicycle around the parking lot, and then he turned and proceeded
westbound towards Seventh Avenue.
The officers then observed
Dixon riding his bicycle in the southwest direction towards the
Social Security building across the street from the McDonald’s.
The officers followed Dixon in their police car, and Officer U.
testified that he saw Dixon fall off of the bicycle and a yellow
towel fall from Dixon’s waistband.
tall street lamps.
The area was illuminated by
Officer U. immediately exited the police car
and told Dixon, who was still on the ground as a result of his
fall, to put his hands in front of him.
Officer H. approached
on Dixon’s left side and Officer U. on his right side.
H. put his lower knee into Dixon’s back to prevent Dixon from
getting up while the officers put handcuffs on Dixon.
officers rolled Dixon onto his side, Officer U. saw a yellow
towel underneath Dixon, in the same area where he previously saw
a yellow towel fall from Dixon’s waistband.
The yellow towel
was wrapped three to four times around a loaded gun.
then read Dixon his Miranda 2 rights.
After conducting a records check on Dixon, Officer U.
questioning at the Fourth Avenue Jail, Dixon admitted to being a
rights had not been restored and to possessing the yellow towel,
but he denied owning the gun.
fingerprints matched the fingerprints on the Arizona Department
of Corrections prison packet, and also that the gun found at the
scene was capable of being fired.
On the third day of trial, after the State rested its
case-in-chief, Dixon moved for a dismissal pursuant to Rule 20.
The court denied the motion.
Dixon testified and, although he admitted to being on
his bicycle near Seventh Street and Van Buren on June 23, 2009,
he denied ever possessing a gun.
Dixon stated that he first saw
yellow rag] out of [his] pants.”
Dixon also admitted to being
prohibited from possessing firearms because his rights had not
been restored following two prior felonies.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
The jury found Dixon guilty of count one, misconduct
involving weapons, a class 4 felony.
Dixon admitted to two
prior felony convictions when he testified.
In accordance with
presumptive sentence of 10 years’ incarceration with 202 days of
presentence incarceration credit.
pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution,
and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010) and 134033(A)(1) (2010).
Having considered defense counsel’s brief and examined
the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451
P.2d at 881, we find none.
The sentence imposed falls within
the range permitted by law, and the evidence presented supports
represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and
constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of
Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85,
appeal have ended.
Counsel need do no more than inform Dixon of
the disposition of the appeal and his future options, unless
counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to
the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review.
thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed,
petition for review.
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge
PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge