State v. Hall

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. ) ) DOWAN LOUIS HALL, ) ) Appellant. ) ) _________________________________ ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 11-04-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0861 1 CA-CR 09-0862 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause Nos. CR 2001-001921 and CR 2008-117014-001 DT The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Bruce Peterson, Legal Advocate By Frances J. Gray, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d (defendant) has 878 (1969). advised us Counsel that, for after Dowan searching Louis the Hall entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). We view the facts in the light the most favorable to sustaining resolve all inferences against defendant. jury s verdict and See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). ¶3 In CR 2008-117014-001 DT, defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of armed robbery, class 2 dangerous felonies, and one count of misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 dangerous felony. Defendant was on probation for criminal possession of a forgery device, a class 6 felony, in CR 2001001921, when he committed the offense. The following evidence was presented at trial. ¶4 Defendant entered a Peter Piper Pizza and acted as if 2 he intended to order a pizza. A Peter Piper Pizza employee, L.C., recognized defendant as the same person who had robbed the restaurant three months prior. take him to the back. Defendant demanded that L.C. A Peter Piper Pizza manager, G.M., was in the office in the back of the restaurant, and defendant told him to open the safe. L.C. and G.M. noticed that defendant was armed with a black handgun. Defendant said, Give me the money and you won t get hurt. ¶5 L.C. retrieved the money out of the cash register in the front of the store while G.M. opened the safe for defendant. L.C. dialed 9-1-1 while she was at the cash register and left the phone off the hook. Once the safe was opened, defendant directed L.C. to place the money from the cash register and the safe into a bag. Defendant took the bag of money and left the restaurant through a back door. ¶6 A court found jury that convicted defendant defendant as violated charged. the The conditions of trial his probation in CR 2001-001921, and defendant admitted to having two other prior felony convictions. Defendant s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment, receiving 828 days of presentence incarceration credit. In CR 2008- 117014-001 DT, defendant was sentenced to 20 years for count 1, 3 15.75 years for count 2, and 10 years for count 3, with counts 2 and 3 to run concurrently with each other. Defendant received 463 days of presentence incarceration credit with respect to counts 2 and 3. The trial court ordered that defendant s 20- year sentence for count 1 be served after the completion of the sentences for counts 2 and 3. ¶7 Defendant sentences. 9 of the (A.R.S.) timely appealed his convictions and We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section Arizona §§ Constitution and 12-120.21(A)(1)(2003), Arizona 13-4031 Revised Statutes (2010), and 13- 4033(A)(1)(2010). ¶8 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. So far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings, statutory limits. 584-85, 684 P.2d and the sentence imposed was within the Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 154, 156-57 (1984), obligations in this appeal are at end. 4 defendant s counsel s ¶9 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ _____________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ DONN KESSLER, 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.