STATE OF ARIZONA v. SHAWMAINE EUSTACE ARDEL MOORE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SHAWMAINE EUSTACE ARDEL MOORE, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0081 Filed September 15, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20152653001 The Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Law Offices of Cornelia Wallis Honchar, P.C., Tucson By Cornelia Wallis Honchar Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MOORE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Shawmaine Moore was convicted of three counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. The trial court sentenced him to a ten-year prison term for each offense, to be served concurrently. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she 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 error. Moore has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports them here. In June 2015, police officers found at least three firearms in a vehicle registered to Moore, who previously had been convicted of a felony and was on probation at the time. Surveillance video showed Moore in the vehicle handling two of the weapons, and he admitted to police that he had handled the third, all in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-3101(A)(1), (A)(7)(b); 13-3102(A)(4). The evidence also supports the trial court’s finding that he had at least three historical prior felony convictions. His sentences are within the statutory range and were properly imposed. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), (O); 133102(M). 2 STATE v. MOORE Decision of the Court ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). Accordingly, Moore’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 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.
