STATE v. SHROPSHIRE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: 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. 31.34 DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/03/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) v. JOSHUA LAWRENCE SHROPSHIRE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 11-0792 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-005920-001 The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Bruce F. Peterson, Maricopa County Legal Advocate By Kerri L. Chamberlin, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T I M M E R, Presiding Judge ¶1 resulting Joshua Lawrence Shropshire appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury convicted him of disorderly conduct involving violation of a Arizona deadly Revised 2904(A)(6) (West 2012). 1 weapon, a Statutes class six felony, ( A.R.S. ) section in 13- Shropshire s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, he found no arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted Shropshire an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. appeal pursuant Constitution 4033(A)(1). to and We have jurisdiction to consider this Article A.R.S. 6, §§ Section 9, of 12-120.21(A)(1), the Arizona 13-4031, 13- For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION ¶2 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969). We find none. The record shows that Shropshire was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Shropshire all his rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona 1 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Absent material revisions after the date of an alleged offense, we cite a statute's current version. 2 Shropshire s sentence falls within the range prescribed by law. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. CONCLUSION ¶3 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this Shropshire s Counsel need do decision, counsel s representation no more in than this inform Shropshire of the status of the appeal and Shropshire s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission review. to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Shropshire shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm Shropshire s sentence. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Patricia K. Norris, Judge /s/ Donn Kessler, Judge 3 conviction and

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.