State v. Francis

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. ASHLEY DANIELLE FRANCIS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07-08-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CR 09-0572 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-151932-001 DT The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Phoenix Attorneys for Appellee Bruce F. Peterson, Office of the Legal Advocate Phoenix By Consuelo M. Ohanesian, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant ________________________________________________________________ G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 Ashley Danielle Francis appeals from her conviction of one count of armed robbery, a class two felony. Francis s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that she has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting examine the record for reversible error. 528 U.S. 259 (2000). that this court See Smith v. Robbins, Francis was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We therefrom view the in the light convictions. facts and most all reasonable favorable to inferences sustaining the State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). ¶3 In the early morning of July 18, 2008, Francis drove her ex-boyfriend, Lonnie McLaughlin, and two other individuals to an apartment complex at 2529 W. Cactus - their errand was a robbery. complex s Francis parking backed lot, into its parking space. her car effectively up to a blocking dumpster the in the victim s car Francis remained in the driver s seat while Lonnie and another individual walked up to the victim s car. Lonnie pointed a gun at the victim s face through the driver-side window while the other individual grabbed a hold of 2 the victim s two-year-old son from the passenger side. demanded money. They Once the victim gave them her purse containing her credit cards, ID, social security card, bank card, check card, insurance card, and cash, her son was released. Lonnie and the other individual then walked back to Francis s car, got in, and Francis drove away, crashing through construction barricades. ¶4 After the robbery, the victim drove straight to her mother-in-law s house to call the police. When she was pulling up to a red light at 19th Avenue and Cactus, she recognized Francis s car stopped at the light. The driver-side window was rolled down and the victim could clearly see Francis. Lonnie raised the gun threateningly while Francis made eye contact with the victim, and then turned south at the light and sped away. As the car receded, the victim wrote down its license plate number to give to the police. ¶5 Francis was charged with one count of armed robbery, a class two felony, and the State alleged dangerousness. At trial, the victim testified and identified Francis as the driver of the get-away car, and the State Francis s interview with the police. played a video-tape of Francis was convicted of armed robbery, a dangerous offense, and sentenced to the minimum term of seven years imprisonment. we have jurisdiction pursuant 3 Francis timely appealed, and to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶6 Having considered defense counsel s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The sentence imposed falls within the range permitted by law, and the evidence presented supports the conviction. As far as the record reveals, Francis was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with her constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶7 684 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, P.2d 154, 156-57 appeal have ended. (1984), counsel s obligations in this Counsel need do no more than inform Francis of the disposition of the appeal and her future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Francis has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if she desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. 4 CONCLUSION ¶8 The conviction and sentence are affirmed. ____/s/______________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge CONCURRING: ____/s/______________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Presiding Judge ____/s/______________________________ PHILIP HALL, 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.