State v. Hunter

 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. TYVAN HUNTER, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 04-20-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0502 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-170804-001 DT The Honorable Colleen L. French, 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 Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Thomas Baird, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Tyvan Hunter appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of armed robbery. Counsel for Hunter 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 searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal and requests search the record for fundamental error. that this court Hunter was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. is favorable to reasonable inferences 289, the entire record for We view the facts in the light most sustaining 293, review State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). Ariz. to 778 the against P.2d conviction Hunter. 1185, and State 1189 v. (1989). resolve Guerra, all 161 Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 armed Hunter was charged by indictment with one count of robbery, a class 2 dangerous felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-1904 (2010), 1 and one count of forgery, a class 4 felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2002 (2010). The following evidence was presented at trial. 1 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes if no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 2 ¶4 In November 2008, a pizza delivery restaurant received an order for pizza, breadsticks, wings, sandwiches, and soda, which totaled approximately eighty dollars. The employee who delivered the food, E.M., encountered two men outside of a house waiting for the order. He handed them the food and in exchange received a one hundred dollar bill from one of the men. E.M. walked to his car to more fully examine the bill in the light because the bill felt like plastic. E.M. told the men he could not accept the money because it was counterfeit. One of them approached E.M. from behind, displayed a gun, and told E.M. to leave. E.M. returned the money, drove back to the restaurant, and called the police. ¶5 When police arrived at the house where the food had been delivered, they found that the home was vacant. The police then located Hunter, who matched the suspect s description, at a nearby home. boxes at They also located torn-up pizza and chicken wing another home in the area. The boxes contained a receipt that listed the address where E.M. had delivered the pizzas. E.M. later identified Hunter as the man who handed him the hundred one dollar bill. Police found two one hundred dollar bills on Hunter s person, and both bills were later found to be counterfeit. Hunter admitted to police that he handed a one hundred dollar bill to E.M. but he claimed his friend was the one who pulled the gun. 3 ¶6 Following a three-day trial, the jury found guilty of armed robbery but not guilty of forgery. Hunter The trial court sentenced Hunter to seven years imprisonment with 223 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶7 He timely appealed. We have read and considered counsel s brief and have reviewed the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. and represented by The record shows that Hunter was present counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, he was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. ¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Hunter of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations, unless, upon review, counsel finds 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, 156-57 (1984). Hunter has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration review. 4 or petition for ¶9 Accordingly, we affirm Hunter s convictions and sentences. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ______________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Presiding Judge /s/ ______________________________ DONN KESSLER, 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.