STATE OF ARIZONA v. EMMANUEL DEMITRIUS MCKINNEY
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 SEP 26 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EMMANUEL DEMITRIUS MCKINNEY, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0131 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20103000001 Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge AFFIRMED Robert J. Hirsh, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 Appellant Emmanuel McKinney was convicted after a jury trial of second- degree burglary and possession of burglary tools. After he admitted having two historical prior felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to enhanced, substantially mitigated, concurrent prison terms of 7.5 and 2.25 years. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Nash, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has found no arguably meritorious issue to raise and requests that we search the record for error. McKinney has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts. See State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 912, 914 (2005). So viewed, the evidence, including the testimony of a neighbor who witnessed the incident and police officers who had been involved in McKinney s arrest, established McKinney, with the intent to commit a theft or felony, had entered the victims home by breaking a window with a rock, thereby committing the offense of second-degree burglary in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1507. The evidence also established McKinney had possessed burglary tools, specifically gloves he intended to use or used when committing the burglary, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1505(A)(1) and (C). The record establishes prison terms were lawful, that is, within the statutory parameters, and were imposed in a lawful manner. 2 ¶3 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, 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.
