State v. Huggins
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. WILLIE C. HUGGINS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 11-0091 DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/21/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-141705-001 DT The Honorable Shellie F. Smith, Commissioner AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona 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 Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Willie Huggins timely appeals from his conviction and sentence for burglary in the third degree. After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Huggins counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking fundamental error. this court to search the record for This court granted counsel s motion to allow Huggins to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Huggins did not do so. find no fundamental After reviewing the entire record, we error and, therefore, affirm Huggins conviction and sentence. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On November 15, 2005, a volunteer at a Phoenix church discovered several damaged doors and a broken window. She called the police, and they found fresh blood stains near the broken window and a blood trail from the broken window that led into the kitchen. The police found a blood-stained napkin in the kitchen, and impounded it as evidence. The church s pastor informed police a CD player was missing from his office, and the police believed the church had been burglarized by somebody who had entered through the window. 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Huggins. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 ¶3 The police later compared DNA from the blood-stained napkin to DNA profiles Huggins DNA profile. in a computer database and matched Police then used a buccal swab to collect a sample of Huggins DNA, which forensic DNA analysts matched to the DNA found on the blood-stained napkin. ¶4 The State, by information, charged burglary in the third degree, a class 4 felony. Huggins with The superior court initially found Huggins, who was already in custody for an earlier offense, was not competent to stand trial, but also found there was a substantial probability that [Huggins would] regain competency within the foreseeable future. After holding two evidentiary hearings on Huggins competency, and reviewing the reports of medical experts superior court eventually trial. After a trial who that evaluated him, Huggins found had competent to focused on the DNA the stand evidence implicating Huggins, a jury found him guilty of burglary in the third degree. The superior court sentenced Huggins, who had at least two historical prior convictions, to a mitigated prison term of eight years, with 549 days of presentence incarceration credit. DISCUSSION ¶5 We have reviewed error and find none. 881. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at Huggins received a fair trial. 3 He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages. ¶6 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict. members and the The jury was properly comprised of eight court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charge, Huggins presumption of innocence, the State s burden verdict. The of proof, superior and the court necessity received of and a unanimous considered a presentence report, Huggins was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing, and his sentence was within the range of acceptable sentences for his offense. CONCLUSION ¶7 We decline to order briefing and affirm Huggins conviction and sentence. ¶8 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining to Huggins representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Huggins of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds 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). ¶9 Huggins has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court s own motion, we also grant Huggins 30 4 days from the date of this decision to file an in persona motion for reconsideration. _/s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: _/s/ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge _/s/ PHILIP HALL, Judge 5 propria
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.
