State v. Rowe

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, v. RONALD ALLEN ROWE, ) ) Appellee, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/29/10 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: JT 1 CA-CR 08-1015 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-118523-001 DT The Honorable Maria Del Mar Verdin, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Theresa M. Armendarez, P.L.C. by Theresa M. Armendarez Attorney for Appellant Phoenix W I N T H R O P, Judge ¶1 Ronald convictions and Allen Rowe sentences ( Appellant ) for attempted appeals armed from his robbery and multiple counts of kidnapping and aggravated assault, all non- repetitive, brief in dangerous accordance felonies. with Appellant s Anders v. counsel California, 386 filed U.S. a 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that after a search of the record on appeal he finds no arguable question of law. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant the opportunity to file a This court afforded supplemental propria persona, but he did not do so. brief in Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this reversible error). court reviews the entire record for After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Appellant s convictions and sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On the afternoon of March 18, 2008, Appellant entered a Phoenix hair salon where JW, one of the salon s owners, was working with a client. JW s husband, RW, another client in a back room of the salon. was working with Appellant, who was carrying a briefcase, 2 held a gun to JW s head and demanded cash 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994). 2 Police later found a knuckles, syringes, gun, briefcase. ski mask, painter s tape, brass t-shirt, and handcuffs in the 2 and wallets from the women. Appellant then pushed the women, at gunpoint, toward the back room where RW was working. commotion, JW alerted her husband by loudly During the saying the word cowboy, a code word the couple had developed as part of a plan in the event a situation such as this should arise. ¶3 RW heard the code word and grabbed a hidden, wrapped in a towel, in his work station. pushed JW and her client onto the floor in gun he kept Appellant then RW s room and, holding the gun to RW s head, ordered him to the floor. JW distracted Appellant by pleading with him, and RW shot him. RW followed Appellant out of the room and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. ¶4 Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of armed robbery (Count 1) and two counts of kidnapping (Counts 3 and 4), all class two dangerous felonies, and three counts of aggravated assault (Counts 2, 5, and 6), class three dangerous felonies. The State also alleged aggravating factors. A twelve-member jury convicted Appellant on all six counts and the court held a hearing on the aggravators. Taking into account the three proven aggravators emotional harm, pecuniary gain, and threatened infliction of serious physical injury - as well as prior felony convictions and multiple victims, the court sentenced Appellant to aggravated terms on all counts: ten years for Counts 1, 2, 5, and 6, and fifteen years for Counts 3 and 4. 3 It ordered that Counts 1 and 2 be served concurrently, but consecutive to Count 3, and that Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 be served consecutively, with 108 days of presentence incarceration credit on Count 1. have Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and we jurisdiction Arizona pursuant Constitution, and to Article Arizona 6, Revised Section Statutes 9 of the ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). ANALYSIS ¶5 We have reviewed error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. were within the statutory limits. The sentences Appellant was represented by counsel and was offered the opportunity to speak at sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3 jury s verdicts, Further, substantial evidence supported the including testimony from three of the four victims. 3 Appellant absconded on the third day of trial and the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. A defendant s decision to violate his conditions of release by absconding constitutes a voluntary waiver of the right to be present at his trial. State v. Holm, 195 Ariz. 42, 43, ¶ 4, 985 P.2d 527, 528 (App. 1998), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247, 34 P.3d 356 (2001). 4 ¶6 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations appeal have pertaining ended. to Appellant s Counsel need do representation no more in than this inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. for See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. CONCLUSION ¶7 We affirm Appellant s convictions and sentences. ____________/S/______________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge CONCURRING: ______________/S/________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge _____________/S/_________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge 5

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.