STATE v. GROTJAN
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. RONALD GROTJAN, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 9/12/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0447 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-145880-001 The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Bruce Peterson, Maricopa County Legal Advocate by Kerri L. Chamberlin, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 After Ronald Grotjan was convicted and sentenced for negligent homicide and endangerment, his counsel filed this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and asked us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Grotjan did not take the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. FACTS 1 ¶2 ran While driving his minivan on July 13, 2009, Grotjan a red light, struck occupants of the car. a Honda Civic and injured the two The passenger in the car, however, was fatally injured. 2 ¶3 Immediately disoriented and had after the slurred collision, speech. Grotjan After the appeared paramedics arrived, he told them that he had taken his prescribed Xanax and Methadone that morning. Grotjan was taken to the hospital, and a detective observed that Grotjan had signs that he was under the influence. warrant and had The detective medical subsequently personnel 1 take secured Grotjan s a search blood for We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89, 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997). 2 The parties stipulated that the passenger died as a result of internal injuries sustained in the collision. 2 analysis. and The analysis revealed that Grotjan s levels of Xanax Clonapin result, exceeded Grotjan dangerous was felony, established indicted and for therapeutic ranges. manslaughter, endangerment, a class a six class As a two dangerous felony. ¶4 Grotjan challenged his competency to go to trial, but was found competent. At trial, the jury heard from the victim that survived the collision; other fact witnesses; a forensic scientist who testified about the effects of elevated amounts of Xanax and Clonapin; and from Grotjan s wife who testified that her husband had been taking the prescription for many years and appeared normal when he left the house. After all the evidence was presented, the jury convicted Grotjan of endangerment, a dangerous offense, found he was not guilty of manslaughter, but guilty of the lesser-included charge of negligent homicide, a dangerous offense. He was subsequently sentenced to prison for six years for negligent homicide and a concurrent 2.25 years for endangerment, and given 275 days of presentence incarceration credit. was Subsequently, and pursuant to a stipulation, Grotjan ordered to pay $3500 in restitution family. 3 to the decedent s DISCUSSION ¶5 We have read and considered the opening brief. have searched the entire record for reversible error. We See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted Arizona in Procedure. compliance the the Rules of Criminal Grotjan was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. that with jury The jury was properly instructed. listened to the testimony and It is clear followed the instructions because the jury only determined that the State had proven the lesser-included charge of negligent homicide and not the greater charge of manslaughter. was substantial evidence to Consequently, because there support the verdicts and the sentences were within the statutory range, we find no error that would require a new trial. ¶6 After this decision is filed, counsel s obligation to represent Grotjan in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform his client of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel identifies 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). Grotjan may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 CONCLUSION ¶7 Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Judge /s/ ________________________________ DONN KESSLER, 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.
