STATE v. BRAXTON

 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. CHAD EVERETT BRAXTON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 1/10/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0071 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-006318-001 The Honorable Karen L. O Connor, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Bruce Peterson, Maricopa County Legal Advocate by Kerri Chamberlin, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H A L L, Judge ¶1 Chad Everett Braxton (defendant) conviction and the sentence imposed. appeals from his For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. ¶2 Defendant's appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that, after a diligent search of the record, she was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶3 We review for fundamental error, error that goes to the foundation of a case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense. See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424, 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988). We view the evidence presented at trial in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 182, ¶ 2, 68 P.3d 407, 408 (2003). ¶4 On July 20, 2010, defendant was charged by indictment with one count of trafficking in stolen property in the second degree, a class three felony. The State also alleged that defendant had one historical prior felony conviction. ¶5 January The following evidence was presented at trial. 15, 2010, A.B., the victim, 2 was working as a On pizza deliverer at Pizza Hut. After making a delivery, A.B. returned to the restaurant to pick-up another delivery, leaving her keys in the vehicle. On her way out of the restaurant, a coworker ran in and informed her that two people drove off in her Dodge Caravan. A.B. then reported the vehicle stolen with the police. ¶6 The vehicle was later recovered during an undercover operation conducted by Detectives Michael Applegate of the Phoenix Police Department. Lindsey and Adam While undercover, Detective Applegate received a call, at approximately 3:45 p.m. on January 15, 2010, from a person wanting to sell a stolen Dodge Caravan. A meeting was set up in the area of 36th Street and Indian School Road at around dusk. The detectives arrived early, set up a surveillance camera, and waited for the subjects to arrive at the designated location. Detective Applegate testified that two men arrived in the stolen van, one of which he identified as defendant. Everyone exited their respective vehicles, greetings were exchanged, and an inspection of the vehicle took place. $300.00. The The negotiated price of the vehicle was detectives paid defendant the $300.00, shook hands, and left with the stolen vehicle. ¶7 Detective Kathleen Aboussafy prepared a photo line-up from the police database by putting information known about the subjects. up. Detectives Lindsey and Applegate were shown the line- Detective Applegate positively identified defendant in 3 the line-up. Lindsey The parties recognized further defendant from stipulated a that non-criminal Detective transaction that happened a month prior to this incident. ¶8 After a three-day guilty as charged. trial, the jury found defendant The trial court found that defendant had one prior historical felony conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant to a mitigated sentence of five years in prison with 273 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶9 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offense for which he was convicted. ¶10 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant's Counsel need do decision, counsel s representation no more than in this inform defendant of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156- 4 57 (1984). Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. Accordingly, defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. _/s/____________________________ PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: _/s/__________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge _/s/__________________________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Judge 5

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.