State v. Williams

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. ) ) WILLIAM RAY WILLIAMS, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) No. 1 CA-CR 11-0312 DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/09/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-133502-001 DT The Honorable Lisa M. Roberts, Judge Pro Tem 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 Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorney for Appellant Phoenix D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 William Ray Williams appeals his conviction for taking the identity of another in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-2008. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339, 857 P.2d 388, 391 (App. 1993). Williams did not file a supplemental brief in propria persona. evidence in conviction. the light most On appeal, we view the favorable to sustaining the State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552, 633 P.2d 355, 361 (1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 (1982). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In February 2009, Williams cashed a $2000 check ( check 1295 ) made out to him and drawn on H.L. s bank account. Because Williams was a non-customer, the bank required him to place his fingerprint on the check. Williams also presented his driver s license, and the bank recorded the license number as part of the transaction. ¶3 A few days later, H.L. tried to withdraw money from her account, but was informed it was way overdrawn because of check 1295. check number H.L. stated she did not write that check and that 1295 was still in her checkbook. The bank s financial crimes investigator reviewed H.L. s account and saw that check 1295 had H.L. s identifying information and account number on it, but it was physically different from other checks processed through H.L. s account 2 and was for a much higher amount than normal. Detective Miaso matched the license number provided by the bank to Williams. driver s The detective also matched a law enforcement data base[] photo of Williams to photographs of the transaction taken at the bank. ¶4 When Detective Miaso questioned Williams, he immediately said he was a hundred percent wrong in cashing the check, but said he had penalties and that s why he cashed it. Williams apologized and offered to pay back the funds. explained the check came from an online job He opportunity, whereby someone in Russia provided the check and Williams sent money back after cashing it. ¶5 Williams another ( count was 1 ) indicted and for forgery taking ( count the 2 ), identity both class of 4 felonies. He failed to appear for the first day of trial and was in tried absentia. Detective Miaso, the bank s investigator, and H.L. testified for the prosecution. conclusion judgment of of the State s acquittal case, pursuant defense to Rule counsel 20, Criminal Procedure, which the court denied. no evidence. At the moved Arizona fraud for Rules a of The defense offered The jury found Williams guilty of count 1 but acquitted him of forgery. ¶6 Williams appeared at sentencing and admitted one prior felony in return for the State s agreement not to allege two other convictions for sentence enhancement purposes. 3 The court sentenced Williams incarceration, to with a 88 presumptive days of term of pre-sentence 2.5 years incarceration credit. DISCUSSION ¶7 We have read and considered the briefs submitted by defense counsel and have reviewed the entire record. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Leon, 104 We find no fundamental error. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory range. Defendant was represented by counsel during all critical phases of the proceedings. notice of the trial date. instructed. The jury He had The jury was properly impaneled and instructions were consistent with the offenses charged. The record reflects no irregularity in the deliberation process. ¶8 A judgment of acquittal is appropriate only when there is no substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. Crim. P. 20. Substantial evidence is such Ariz. R. proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (1990) State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (citation insufficiency of omitted). the Reversible evidence occurs only error where based there is on a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction. 4 State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, 200, 928 P.2d 610, 624 (1996). ¶9 The State presented substantial evidence that Williams knowingly without possessed her unlawful H.L. s consent purpose or personal and with the to cause identifying intent loss. to See information use Ariz. it for Rev. an Stat. ( A.R.S. ) § 13-2008(A); see also A.R.S. § 13-2001(10) (personal identifying information includes a person s name, residence or mailing address, contained H.L. s or checking name, purported signature. account address, number). checking Check account 1295 number, and H.L. testified she did not know Williams or give him permission to have her information or sign her name. Detective Miaso testified that Williams said he was sorry and offered to pay back the money when questioned about the check. ¶10 The requisite mental state could be inferred from the totality of circumstances surrounding the check. See State v. Edgar, 126 Ariz. 206, 209, 613 P.2d 1262, 1265 (1980) ( It is well settled that criminal intent may be proved circumstantial evidence . . . . ) (citation omitted). by Williams told Detective Miaso it was his job to cash checks, but he communicated with his alleged employer, the Russians, only by e-mail. Although check 1295 was allegedly provided by the Russians, it was written on a personal checking account of an unknown Arizona resident and negotiated 5 at an Arizona bank. Detective Miaso also testified Williams said he tried to cash a second check, but the bank wouldn t cash it. CONCLUSION ¶11 We affirm Williams conviction and sentence. Counsel s obligations pertaining to Williams representation in this appeal inform have Williams ended. of the Counsel status of need the do nothing appeal and more his than future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission review. days the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). 30 to from On the court s own motion, Williams shall have the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge /s/ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Chief Judge 6

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.