State v. Kuehl

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. JAMES THOMAS KUEHL, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 05-18-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0406 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2003-021794-001-DT The Honorable Barbara L. Spencer, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona 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 Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H A L L, Judge ¶1 James Thomas Kuehl appeals from his convictions and and the sentences imposed. ¶2 Defendant=s appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that, after a diligent search of the record, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, & 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶3 We review for fundamental error, error that goes to the foundation of a case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense. See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424, 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988). We view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 182, & 2, 68 P.3d 407, 408 (2003). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶4 On September 29, 2003, defendant was charged by information with Count One: theft of means of transportation, a class three felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-1814(A)(5) (2010), and Count Two: unlawful flight from law enforcement vehicle, a class five felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-622.01 (2004). 2 ¶5 On August 25 2003, T.E. took her 2002 Cavalier to Lou Grubb Chevrolet for warranty work. Chevrolet Later that day, the dealership called T.E. and asked if she had picked up the vehicle. T.E. was asked to come to the dealership where they informed her that her vehicle had been stolen off of the lot. ¶6 On September 19, 2003, while on routine patrol, Officer J.W. of the Phoenix Police Department observed a gray or silverish car with a possible expired license plate sticker. Officer J.W. asked his license plate system. The officers quickly learned that the vehicle had been number partner, through Officer the J.S., patrol to check vehicle s the computer reported stolen. ¶7 The officers then advised the radio dispatcher that they were following an occupied stolen vehicle and requested a helicopter and other units as back up. Officer J.W. testified that while traveling northbound, the stolen vehicle turned into an apartment complex. the apartment The officers followed the vehicle through complex and Officer J.W. observed the driver, defendant, turn around and look back at the patrol car. As the officers continued to follow the vehicle, Officer J.W. observed that the stolen intermittently. At car s brake that point, lights the were officers coming on activated the overhead lights on the patrol car because they thought defendant 3 may take off running on foot. They continued to follow the vehicle through an electric gate and saw the vehicle accelerate and collide with a pickup truck. The vehicle then accelerated again, but defendant was unable to correct the vehicle and he crossed six lanes of traffic and struck a light pole. ¶8 As attempted to Officer flee J.W. on approached foot. After the they vehicle, both slid defendant down an embankment, Officer J.W. took defendant into custody. ¶9 Defendant was tried in absentia and, after a three-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court affirmed a bench warrant and suspended sentencing until defendant was apprehended. ¶10 Following defendant s apprehension, the trial court held a hearing on defendant s alleged historical prior felony convictions. The trial court found that defendant had one historical prior felony conviction and sentenced him to a supermitigated term of three and one-half years imprisonment on Count One and a super-mitigated term of one year imprisonment on Count Two. The trial court ordered these sentences to run concurrently with 125 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶11 We have read and considered counsel=s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules 4 of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentences imposed were within statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted. ¶12 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant=s Counsel need decision, counsel=s representation do no more than in this inform defendant of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel=s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). Defendant 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. Accordingly, defendant's convictions and sentences are affirmed. _/s/______________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Presiding Judge . /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, 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.