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,
CARLOS DEVON LEWIS,
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
1 CA-CR 10-0581
(Not for Publication –
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2009-150281-001 DT
The Honorable Colleen L. French, Judge Pro Tempore
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General
Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel,
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
B A R K E R, Judge
conviction and sentence for three offenses: (1) theft of means
sentenced on July 7, 2010 and timely filed a notice of appeal on
July 8, 2010.
Lewis’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon,
104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that
arguable ground for reversal.
Lewis was granted leave to file a
supplemental brief in propria persona on or before May 2, 2011,
but did not do so.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9
(“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and
We are required to search the record for
Leon, 104 Ariz. at 299, 451 P.2d at 880.
Because we find no such error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On July 28, 2009, the victim parked his 1995 Neon at
his girlfriend’s house at about 1:30 to 2:00 A.M.
thirty to forty-five minutes later, the victim heard his car
start-up, looked out the window, and saw that his car lights
After seeing his car driven away, the victim and his
girlfriend proceeded to report the stolen vehicle to the police.
The police arrived a few minutes later and the victim gave them
a description of his car: a red, four-door Dodge Neon.
Officer S. and Officer A. were on duty that night and
patrolling in a law enforcement vehicle driven by Officer A.
when Officer A. received a “hot call” describing the victim’s
Officer A. drove westbound on Indian School Road and
spotted the suspect vehicle coming southbound on 19th Avenue,
turning right (westbound) onto Indian School Road.
passenger seat, Officer S. was able to see the suspect’s face in
the side-view and rear-view mirrors of the suspect vehicle.
dreadlock hair tied back . . . [and] a dark goatee.”
also had a clear view of the suspect when the patrol car was
only a few feet from the suspect vehicle.
S.’s description of the suspect.
He confirmed Officer
Two other patrol cars soon
joined in the pursuit.
officers and accelerated to 50-60 mph.
Soon after, the officers
saw sparks flying beneath the suspect vehicle before it went
airborne and crashed through a fence at Washington High School.
Then, the suspect got out of the vehicle and ran onto the school
Officer A. stated the suspect was wearing a white tee-
shirt, jean shorts, and white and red gym shoes.
Shortly after Officer A. set up a perimeter around the
high school, a canine-unit arrived to find the suspect.
Lewis was then handcuffed and taken into custody.
Officer A. testified he was “100 percent” sure that Lewis was
the same person he had seen driving the car.
Officer S. also
testified he was “100 percent” sure that Lewis was the same
individual who fled from the vehicle.
Officer S. proceeded to search the vehicle and found
that the ignition had been “punched.”
The plastic casing around
the ignition had been “stripped off” so a screwdriver or piece
of metal could now be used to start the car.
police notified the victim that his car had been found, drove
him to Washington High School, and showed him Lewis.
testified that he did not know Lewis and did not give permission
to anyone with that name to take his car.
In addition, the vice
principal of Washington High School also testified he did not
know Lewis and that Lewis did not have permission to be on the
At trial, Lewis testified that he did not steal a car
on July 28, 2009.
He stated that he had walked to the high
school and climbed the fence to get onto the grounds to get away
from his girlfriend.
He further explained that when he saw the
police lights, he hid by a van parked on school grounds because
he thought someone had reported him for climbing the fence or
his girlfriend had called the police.
proceeded to trial where he and his counsel were present for all
aggravating circumstances other than prior convictions, offenses
admitted to these three prior convictions in his testimony.
At the conclusion of the trial, a twelve-person jury
found Lewis guilty as charged.
On July 2, 2010, Lewis was
sentenced to the presumptive terms of imprisonment for the three
counts: (1) 11.25 years for theft of means of transportation,
(2) 5 years for unlawful flight from law enforcement vehicle,
and (3) 3.75 years for aggravated criminal damage.
stated these terms were to be served concurrently and with the
appropriate presentence incarceration credit of 339 days.
court did provide Lewis with the opportunity to speak.
meritorious grounds for reversal of Lewis’s conviction or for
modification of the sentence imposed.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at
744; Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881.
Lewis was present
at all critical stages of the proceedings and was represented by
All proceedings were conducted in accordance with the
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, we affirm.
obligations in this appeal have ended subject to the following.
Counsel need do no more than inform Lewis of the status 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.
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-
85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984).
Lewis has thirty days from the
date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per
motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge
PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge