STATE v. SCHUESSLER
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. ) ) JEROME SCOTT SCHUESSLER, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/31/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-CR 13-0103 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-006024-001 The Honorable Kristen C. Hoffman, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Joseph Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Tyrone C. Mitchell, P.C. By Tyrone C. Mitchell Attorney for Appellant Phoenix B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Jerome sentence for brief in Scott armed accordance Schuessler robbery. with appeals Counsel Anders v. for his conviction Schuessler California, 386 and filed U.S. a 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. was granted the opportunity to file a he was Schuessler supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. is to review the 289, sustaining 293, record for We view the facts in the light most the conviction reasonable inferences against Schuessler. Ariz. entire State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). favorable to 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 and resolve all State v. Guerra, 161 (1989). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 In April 2011, Schuessler was charged by indictment with armed robbery, a class 2 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-1904. The following evidence was presented at trial. ¶4 The victim, a store clerk, testified that on December 29, 2010, a man entered the store and demanded money from the cash register. The man said he would kill the victim if he did not give him the money. The man had his right hand over a concealed object and told the victim it was a gun. believing the object had the shape 2 of a gun, The victim, handed over approximately $550 from the register. The man took the money and spit on the countertop as he left. 1 ¶5 The victim gave police a detailed description of the robber. Several days later, the victim notified police that he had reviewed photos of recently arrested defendants posted on the Maricopa County Sheriff s Office website and identified Schuessler as the man who robbed the store. ¶6 A crime scene specialist testified that she swabbed the countertop for DNA and impounded the swab. The DNA analysis revealed there was a mixture from at least three individuals. The analyst then testified that Schuessler could not be eliminated as a possible contributor to this mixture. ¶7 The jury found Schuessler guilty as charged and also found the presence of two aggravating circumstances. At the sentencing felony hearing, convictions. Schuessler We to two prior Schuessler was sentenced to an aggravated term of 22 years imprisonment. 2 ¶8 admitted have This appeal followed. searched error and find none. the entire record for reversible All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 1 The A video recording of the incident was presented at trial, but the robber s identity could not be ascertained from the video. 2 Schuessler was also sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment in two companion cases. All three sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. 3 record shows Schuessler was present and represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Schuessler s conviction and sentence. ¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Schuessler of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds 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, 156-57 (1984). Schuessler shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ______________/s/________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: _______________/s/_________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, 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.
