STATE v. WILLINGHAM

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. ) ) ROLAND URBAN WILLINGHAM, ) ) Appellant. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 6/25/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0545 Department D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2012-005723-001 The Honorable Pamela D. Svoboda, Commissioner AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Phoenix By Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for 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 Roland Urban Willingham (defendant), after searching the entire record, has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 In August 2011, a Walmart loss-prevention employee noticed, through video surveillance, defendant and another male pushing a shopping cart inside a Walmart. The duo loaded clothing, diapers, laundry detergent, and a backpack into the cart. They stuffed the backpack with clothing, and defendant began to wear the backpack. The pair then headed for the store s main exit, walking past a row of nearly thirty cash registers. After merchandise, the observing employee that apprehended store; the other male ran away. stated, wow, you Susanne Fitch was guys are called they not defendant pay for the outside the Upon being caught, defendant good. to did the Phoenix scene, Police and, after Officer being Mirandized, defendant admitted to her that he was not planning on paying for the merchandise. ¶3 The state charged defendant with organized retail theft, a class four felony. one count of At trial, Officer Fitch testified that defendant had neither the resources nor the 2 intention of purchasing the merchandise, which she deduced from the Walmart interrogation. ¶4 The jury convicted defendant as charged. During sentencing, defendant admitted to two prior felony convictions and to being on felony probation when he committed the offense, making him a category three repetitive offender. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(C) (2010). Consequently, the court sentenced defendant to the presumptive term of ten years in prison with two years of probation upon release. The court gave defendant 214 days of presentence incarceration credit. Defendant timely appealed. ¶5 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. was adequately So far as the record reveals, defendant represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, 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 petition for review. 3 for reconsideration or ¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence. /s/ __________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ __________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ __________________________________ DONN KESSLER, 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.