STATE v. BLACK
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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/29/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) BRIAN NATHANIEL BLACK, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CR 11-0863 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-007744-001 The Honorable Janet E. Barton, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals and Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law By Michael J. Dew Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Brian Nathaniel Black Appellant T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as 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 Brian Nathaniel Black (defendant) that, has advised us after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting Anders review of the record. this court conduct an Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has done so. ¶2 Defendant and Lorraine H. started dating off and on in 2008. In 2009, Lorraine decided to become a prostitute and met victim on the streets in California. Victim introduced Lorraine to her pimp, George W., and he persuaded them to come and work in Arizona. Lorraine On were the evening conducting a of photo July shoot 28, 2009, with victim George when and he received a phone call and told the girls [t]hey have got a client with a lot of money that wants two girls. George dropped the girls off, and they went to the hotel room indicated by the caller. When victim and Lorraine knocked on the hotel room door, defendant and another person grabbed them and forced [them] into another room. ¶3 Initially, victim was placed in the family room and Lorraine was dragged into the bedroom. When victim was later brought into the bedroom, Lorraine noticed that victim s hands 2 were constrained with zip ties. Defendant questioned victim and Lorraine and said, someone is going to die tonight. ¶4 Soon thereafter, entered a vehicle. everyone left the hotel room and Victim was placed in the trunk by defendant. Defendant stopped at a convenience store to buy lighter fluid because he was going to burn victim. After resuming driving, the vehicle stopped at a traffic signal. and victim jumped out. The trunk popped open With her hands still zip tied, victim jumped over the street divider and began running for her life with defendant chasing close behind. gunshots a few moments later. Lorraine heard multiple Defendant called the other occupants of the vehicle from the lobby of a different hotel. When they picked him up, defendant said to Lorraine, see what you made me do . . . somebody had to die tonight because of you. The group then drove to California. ¶5 The next day, officers responded to a call of a dead woman, later identified as victim. There were numerous shell casings around her body. The medical examiner determined that victim gunshot died of multiple injuries. Blood matching victim s DNA was later identified on defendant s shoe. ¶6 Defendant was charged with one count of first-degree murder, a class 1 felony, and one count of kidnapping, a class 2 felony. trial. Defendant was convicted of both counts after a jury Defendant stipulated to 3 a natural life sentence for first-degree murder and the trial court sentenced him to a concurrent sentence of 10.5 years for the kidnapping charge. Defendant received 859 days presentence incarceration credit on the kidnapping charge. ¶7 We persona have Defendant timely appealed. read supplemental and brief, considered and record for reversible error. P.2d at conducted 881. in We find compliance we defendant s have searched in propia the entire See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 none. with All the of the Arizona proceedings Rules of were Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Judge /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, 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.
