State v. Venable

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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 06-24-010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. FRED THOMPSON VENABLE, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 09-0739 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-112710-001 DT The Honorable Julie P. Newell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Bruce Peterson, Legal Advocate by Kerri L. Chamberlin, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant H A L L, Judge Phoenix Phoenix ¶1 Fred Thompson Venable appeals from his convictions 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, she 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 indictment enforcement February with one vehicle, 27, count a 2009, of class defendant unlawful five was flight felony, in charged from a violation by law of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 28-622.01 (2004), and one count of misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4) (2010). 2 ¶5 On February 19, 2009, Officer B.H. of the Phoenix Police Department observed a tan 1981 Chevy Impala make a wide left-hand turn into the wrong lane. Officer B.H. positioned himself behind the vehicle and activated his overhead lights and siren. The Impala moved into the curb lane, but maintained its speed. Initially, Officer B.H. thought the vehicle was waiting for a safe place to pull over. The car passed through the next intersection, however, and continued through 19th Avenue and the Maricopa Freeway. ¶6 Officer B.H. then radioed for assistance because it appeared the continued vehicle traveling was not going northbound and to stop. collided The with Impala another vehicle. Eventually, the driver of the vehicle lost control and stopped. The driver s side door opened and defendant hopped over the hood of his car and ran eastbound down the alley. ¶7 Officer M.F. of the Phoenix Police Department also observed defendant jump out of the Impala and start running. saw defendant jump over a wall into a yard. The He officer catwalked the wall until he was right next to defendant and jumped down on him. ¶8 Officer vehicle and removal of B.H. placed the He then placed defendant under arrest. removed them front-seat in the three separate passenger, 3 passengers vehicles. the officer from the During the observed a chrome semi-automatic handgun in between his left leg and the seat cushion. ¶9 After a four-day guilty as charged. trial, the jury found defendant During his trial testimony, defendant had admitted to having two historical prior felony convictions and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent presumptive terms that effectively resulted in a ten-year sentence of imprisonment. ¶10 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. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offense for which he was convicted. ¶11 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant s Counsel need do decision, counsel s representation 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, 156- 4 57 (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/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge . /s/ DANIEL A. BARKER, 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.