State v. Wood
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. AARON KEITH WOOD, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 11-0139 DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/27/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-132009-001 DT The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Droban & Company, PC by Kerrie M. Droban Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Anthem P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Aaron Keith Wood has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Wood was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and has not filed one. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Section Article Arizona 6, Revised 9, Statutes of the Arizona ( A.R.S. ) Constitution, sections and 12-120.21(A)(1) (West 2012), 13-4031 (West 2012), and -4033(A)(1) (West 2012). FACTS 1 ¶2 Phoenix residence on reporting a police June 18, suspicious officers 2010, after person on responded to receiving the a vacant a 9-1-1 call premises. The home security system had been activated when the police arrived, and Wood was inside the fenced backyard. When the first officer on the scene approached the backyard, Wood walked out of the side gate and toward the officer. searched. He was subsequently arrested and The officer found a set of pliers and a 5/16-inch nut driver tool in his front pockets. ¶3 After officer that Wood he conditioning units. received had Miranda 2 planned to warnings, remove the he told home s the air Specifically, he said he had pulled the 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989) (citation omitted). 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 circuit breakers from the electrical panel in the backyard and had intended to cut the line containing pressurized, freon gas, but was spooked after discovering that the line had already been cut. appeared He showed freshly the officer pinched. the Officers copper-like found line in that, that fact, someone had tampered with the backyard air conditioning units. ¶4 Wood was indicted for burglary in the third degree, a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1506(A)(1) (West 2012), and possession of burglary tools, a class six felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1505(A)(1) (West 2012). ¶5 The case went to trial and the jury found Wood guilty of both counts. The court found two aggravators, a historical prior felony conviction, and a probation violation. 3 Wood was then sentenced to four and a half years for burglary and a concurrent tools. year and nine months for possession of burglary The sentences were to be served consecutive to his one- year prison sentence for the probation violation, for which he received forty-five days of presentence incarceration credit. DISCUSSION ¶6 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the record before us for reversible error. 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. 3 We find none. See Leon, All of the Wood was on probation in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009136700-001 for possession of burglary tools, a class six felony, when he was arrested in June 2010. 3 proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Wood by was represented counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶7 We affirm Wood s convictions and sentences. After this decision has been filed, counsel s obligation to represent Wood in this appeal has ended. inform Wood of the status of Counsel need do no more than the appeal and Wood s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission review. 157 to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d 154, (1984). Wood may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. /s/ _____________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 4
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.
