State v. Newman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.S See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA FILED: 04/10/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, DIVISION ONE ) 1 CA-CR 10-0528 CLERK BY: sls ) Appellee, ) DEPARTMENT B ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION ) ) (Not for Publication ) Rule 111, Rules of the Appellant. ) Arizona Supreme Court) ) STATE OF ARIZONA, v. JERME REED NEWMAN, Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-163018-001 The Honorable Lisa D. Flores, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Kathryn L. Petroff, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Phoenix K E S S L E R, Judge ¶1 Jerme Reed Newman ( Appellant ) filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), following his conviction of burglary in the second degree, a class 3 felony under Arizona (2010).1 counsel Revised Finding requested fundamental error. no Statutes arguable that this ( A.R.S. ) issues Court to section raise, search the 13-1507 Appellant s record for Appellant was given the opportunity to, but did not submit a supplemental brief. ¶2 After reviewing the entire record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and there is no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm Appellant s conviction and sentence. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 Members of the Phoenix Police Department North Side Street Crimes Unit observed a gold Buick containing Appellant, Jante Drake ( Drake ) and Autumn Hilleren ( Hilleren ), driving slowly through a residential neighborhood. After driving for approximately thirty minutes, the vehicle stopped in front of the victim s house. and entering the Drake was then seen jumping over the fence victim s house from the backyard. A few minutes later, Drake returned to the car, and then went back into the victim s house. the house, the During that time, while Drake was in surveillance team observed Appellant walking along an adjacent street to the victim s house, on its north We cite the current version of the applicable statute when no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 1 2 side. Towards the end of the thirty-minute period, Appellant returned to the vehicle, and sat in the front passenger seat. Drake eventually returned to the vehicle carrying a white bag and Hilleren drove the vehicle to a local convenience store. ¶4 After following Appellant to the convenience store in unmarked cars, the team requested a marked car to approach the gold Buick. Upon seeing the marked police car, Appellant began to flee but ran straight into two unmarked police cars. In the course of the investigation, the police found several items in the backseat of the gold Buick. These items matched the items listed as missing by the victim. ¶5 degree. A jury convicted Appellant of burglary in the second At convictions sentencing, and to the Appellant fact offense while on probation. presumptive term of 11.25 that stipulated he was to two arrested prior for this The court sentenced Appellant to a years, to be served consecutively after completing his sentence for the probation violation. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 In Anders appeals, this Court must review the entire record for fundamental error. See State v. Richardson, Ariz. 336, 339, 857 P.2d 388, 391 (App. 1993). 175 Fundamental error is error going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly 3 have received a fair trial. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005) (quoting State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90, 688 P.2d 980, 982 (1984)). reverse unless the caused prejudice. defendant can Id. at ¶ 20. show the We will not fundamental error On review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all inferences against the defendant. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). DISCUSSION ¶7 This Court fundamental error. has reviewed the entire record for After careful review of the record, we find no meritorious grounds for reversal of Appellant s conviction or modification of the sentence imposed. The record reflects Appellant had a fair trial, and was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of trial. Appellant was given the and opportunity conducted in Procedure. to speak accordance at with sentencing, the Arizona the Rules trial of was Criminal The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict and the trial court imposed a lawfully authorized sentence for Appellant s offense. ¶8 a Substantial evidence has been described as more than mere scintilla accept as and is that which reasonable persons could sufficient reasonable doubt. to support a guilty verdict beyond a State v. Hughes, 189 Ariz. 62, 73, 938 P.2d 4 457, 468 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction. State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, 200, 928 P.2d 610, 624 (1996) (quoting State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 424-25, 555 P.2d 1117, 1118-19 (1976)). ¶9 For the jury to find Appellant guilty of burglary in the second degree, it had to find Appellant or an accomplice: (1) entered or remained unlawfully; (2) in or on a residential structure; (3) with the intent to commit any theft or felony therein. A.R.S. § 13-1507; see also A.R.S. § 13-303 (2010) ( A person is criminally accountable for the conduct of another if . . . [t]he person aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or engaging in the conduct causing such result. ) ¶10 the The State presented substantial evidence to support jury s burglarize verdict. the home Drake in testified question on that that she did day. in The fact police detectives testified that it is common to have a lookout or someone to walk around commits the burglary. and keep watch while an accomplice They also testified that Appellant was walking around while Drake committed the burglary. The jury could imply, from this testimony that Appellant was acting as a lookout, while Drake committed the burglary. 5 Their testimony was supplemented by a next-door neighbor who confirmed the acts of the Appellant that day. Drake s admission, the testimony of the police detectives as well as the next-door neighbor are sufficient to support Appellant s conviction for burglary under the theory of accomplice liability. ¶11 Accomplice liability is imposed another in the commission of an offense. to -304 (2010). This aid can on those who aid See A.R.S. §§ 13-301 manifest itself in several different ways. For example, [o]ne who acts as a lookout may aid and abet. State v. Sears, 22 Ariz. App. 23, 23-24, 522 P.2d 784, 784-85 (1974); see also State v. Bearden, 99 Ariz. 1, 3, 405 P.2d 885, 886 (1965) ( Aiding and abetting contemplates some positive act in aid of the commission of the offense; an active force physical perpetrator in around victim s the producing or moral it. ). house while joined with that Appellant s act Drake burglarizing was of of walking illustrates participation in the burglary as an accomplice. record contains sufficient evidence to support the it The Appellant s conviction for burglary in the second degree under an accomplice liability theory. 6 CONCLUSION ¶12 For the foregoing conviction and sentence. reasons, Upon we affirm Appellant s the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Appellant of the status of his appeal and his future appellate options. obligations, appropriate unless, for upon submission petition for review. Defense counsel has no further review, to the counsel Arizona finds an Supreme issue Court by See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584- 85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Upon the Court s own motion, Appellant shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ DONN KESSLER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge /s/ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 7 motion for

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.