State v. Rodgers

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. RICHARD PAUL RODGERS, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 07-20-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0060 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-147779-001 DT The Honorable Cari A. Harrison, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Eleanor S. Terpstra, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 738 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Richard Paul Rodgers ( Defendant ) has advised us that after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 In July 2008, Defendant apartment without her consent. entered his ex-wife s He remained in the apartment even though she asked him to leave several times. At some point, he pulled out a box cutter and opened and closed the blade twice as he was talking. minutes, he left the apartment. After approximately thirty His ex-wife then contacted the police, and he was detained a short distance from the apartment. ¶3 He was charged with criminal trespass in the first degree, a class six felony, and threatening or intimidating, a class one misdemeanor, both domestic violence offenses. The jury found him guilty of criminal trespass but acquitted him of threatening proved that or intimidating. Defendant had Before a sentencing, historical felony probation at the time he committed the offense. 1 the and State was on As a result, he We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 was sentenced to 1.75 years in prison and was awarded 160 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶4 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶5 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. ¶6 Having searched error, we find none. the entire record for reversible All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶7 After this to represent obligation decision has Defendant been in filed, this appeal counsel s has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal review and reveals Defendant s an issue future options, appropriate for unless submission Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 3 684 P.2d counsel s 154, to the See State v. 157 (1984). Defendant may, if he desires, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ______________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge /s/ ______________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, 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.