STATE OF ARIZONA v. JU'JUAN MARQUETTE GIBSON
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 FILED BY CLERK APR -1 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JU JUAN MARQUETTE GIBSON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0209 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20094200001 Honorable John S. Leonardo, Judge AFFIRMED Barton & Storts, P.C. By Brick P. Storts, III E C K E R S T R O M, Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant After a jury trial, appellant Ju Juan Gibson was convicted of two counts ¶1 each of armed robbery and aggravated assault and one count of aggravated robbery, all dangerous-nature offenses. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment, some mitigated and some presumptive, the longest of which is 7.5 years. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing he has reviewed the entire record and found no arguable legal issues to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, and asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Gibson has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury s verdicts. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(2), 13-1204(A)(2)1, 13-1902, 13-1903(A), 13-1904(A); see also State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to sustaining jury verdict). In sum, two men demanded cash at gunpoint from tellers working at a bank branch located in a Tucson grocery store. Both tellers gave the men marked bait money, and passed along tracking devices, one of which assisted police in apprehending Gibson and his co-defendant, each of whom was carrying the bank s identifiable currency in his pockets. Our review of Gibson s sentences confirms they were within the range authorized and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. § 13-704(A). 1 The version of § 13-1204 in effect at the time Gibson committed the offenses is the same in relevant part. See 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 301, § 52. 2 ¶3 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no fundamental or reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Gibson s convictions and sentences. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 3
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.
