State v. Adams

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. ) ) MARCUS DAWAYNE ADAMS, ) ) Appellant. ) ) 1 CA-CR 10-0012 DIVISION ONE FILED: 11-30-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-144534-001 DT The Honorable Janet E. Barton, Judge The Honorable Larry Grant, Judge The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge 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 Kerri L. Chamberlin, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Marcus Dawayne Adams Appellant Phoenix W I N T H R O P, Judge ¶1 Marcus conviction and Dawayne Adams sentence ( Appellant ) for misconduct appeals from involving his weapons. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); 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 on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Appellant s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error). allowed Appellant to file a This court has also supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has done so. ¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). Finding no reversible error, we affirm Appellant s conviction and sentence. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS 1 ¶3 On July 25, 2008, a grand jury issued an indictment, charging Appellant with knowingly possessing a deadly weapon (a 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994). 2 gun) while being a prohibited possessor, a class four felony in violation of A.R.S § 13-3102(A)(4) (Supp. 2010). 2 The State later alleged that Appellant had three historical prior felony convictions and had committed the charged offense while on release from confinement. ¶4 Before trial, Appellant moved to suppress evidence gathered from what he claimed was an illegal stop. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on January 16, 2009. ¶5 At that evidentiary hearing, evidence supporting the following facts: the State presented On the morning of July 16, 2008, Phoenix police officers were patrolling in an area where someone had run from them the previous evening. Christopher later Outram determined to observed be a red driven by Chevy Cavalier, Appellant, and Officer which the was officer eventually drove his vehicle to a position directly behind the Cavalier, facing northbound on 15th Avenue at its intersection with Glendale Avenue, where Appellant was waiting for a green light in the left-hand turn lane. When the light turned green, Appellant made a wide left turn onto Glendale Avenue, entering the westbound lane nearest the curb (the number three lane) rather than the lane nearest the middle of the road (the number one lane). The officer immediately flashed his lights, sounded 2 We cite the current version of the applicable statute because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 3 his siren, apartment and followed complex Appellant, entrance, which who the turned right officer into estimated an was located approximately 300 feet from the intersection. ¶6 The State contended that the officer s stop was legal because he believed specifically A.R.S. pertinent part: Appellant § had 28-751(2) violated (2004), a traffic which law, states in If practicable the driver shall make the left turn from the left of the center of the intersection and shall make the turn to the left lane immediately available for the driver s direction of traffic. Appellant maintained that his destination was the apartment complex, and that destination was so close to the intersection that a turn into the left lane immediately available was not practicable. 3 The State pointed out that when the officer initiated the stop, he could not have known Appellant s destination. The court agreed with the State that the the issue was whether officer had a reasonable suspicion Appellant had committed a traffic violation, and based on the evidence presented, found that the officer did have such a reasonable suspicion. Consequently, 3 the court denied Appellant presented as a witness an investigator for the Office of the Legal Advocate, a former police officer who testified that the distance from the west curb of 15th Avenue to the entrance of the apartment complex was 189 feet and who estimated that the travel time for such a distance would be less than five seconds. 4 Appellant s motion to suppress the evidence found after the traffic stop. ¶7 Evidence related to the traffic stop was admitted against Appellant during his trial, which began on June 9, 2009. Appellant was not present at trial, but he was aware that the trial could proceed in his absence. During trial, the State presented evidence to support the following facts: When Officer Outram initiated the traffic stop, he drove into the parking lot of the apartment complex and stopped his car behind Appellant s vehicle. Other police officers Officer Outram s vehicle. arrived and parked behind Appellant exited and ignored commands to return to his vehicle, backed away from the police while shouting at them, and began to run. After a brief chase, the officers caught and searched Appellant. ¶8 When the police searched Appellant s pockets, they found a sight for a nine millimeter handgun, a trigger lock, an empty shell casing, millimeter handgun. been driving, the and an instruction manual for a nine When they searched the car Appellant had police found underneath the driver s seat. a nine millimeter handgun The car s passenger remained in the car during the chase, and she was placed in custody after a background check revealed she had an outstanding civil arrest warrant. 5 ¶9 At trial, an expert witness testified that the empty shell casing found in Appellant s pocket had been fired from the handgun found in the car. The State also introduced exhibits and testimony from a fingerprint expert indicating Appellant s status as a convicted felon. The jury found Appellant guilty as charged. ¶10 Before sentencing, the court found that Appellant had three historical prior felony offenses and had been on release from confinement at the time of the current offense. The court sentenced Appellant to a slightly aggravated term of 10.5 years incarceration Appellant in the received incarceration. Arizona credit Department for 201 days of of Corrections. presentence Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. ANALYSIS A. ¶11 The Issue Raised in Appellant s Supplemental Brief In his supplemental brief, Appellant addresses in various ways the issue whether the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the evidence gathered by the police after they stopped his vehicle. During the evidentiary hearing, the court needed to decide whether Officer Outram had a reasonable suspicion that a traffic law had been violated when he stopped Appellant. See State v. Richcreek, 187 Ariz. 501, 505, 930 P.2d 1304, 1308 (1997). If the stop was not based on a reasonable suspicion that Appellant had broken the law, then the 6 stop was an impermissible seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and evidence suppressed. ¶12 We gathered pursuant to that stop should be See id. at 504-05, 930 P.2d at 1307-08. review the trial court s ruling on a motion suppress evidence for a clear abuse of discretion. to State v. Sanchez, 200 Ariz. 163, 165, ¶ 5, 24 P.3d 610, 612 (App. 2001). Additionally, as we have noted, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the court s factual findings, and although we review de novo legal conclusions on which the court s ruling rests, we will uphold the court s ruling if it is legally correct for any reason supported by the record. State v. Childress, 222 Ariz. 334, 338, ¶ 9, 214 P.3d 422, 426 (App. 2009) (citations omitted). its discretion if the We will find that a court has abused reasons given by the court for its decision are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice. ¶13 At the Id. (citation omitted). suppression hearing, the evidence presented allowed the trial court to find that Officer Outram acted with a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity when he stopped Appellant. The testimony indicated that the officer conducted a stop of Appellant s vehicle only after Appellant had turned into the lane farthest from the center of the street. The State argued that Appellant s wide turn created a reasonable suspicion that Appellant had violated a traffic law. 7 Although Appellant addressed that argument by claiming he was permitted to make the wide turn because his ultimate destination was near the intersection, the evidence did not suggest that the officer knew or had reason to know Appellant s destination. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the officer had a reasonable suspicion Appellant had violated the law, concluded the traffic stop was legal, and admitted the evidence found pursuant to the stop. B. ¶14 The Remaining Analysis We have reviewed error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict, and the sentence was within the statutory limits. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. were conducted in compliance with his The proceedings constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶15 After obligations appeal have filing pertaining ended. of to this decision, Appellant s Counsel need do defense counsel s representation no more than in this inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. 8 for See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant 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. CONCLUSION ¶16 Appellant s conviction and sentence are affirmed. ____________/S/______________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge CONCURRING: ______________/S/__________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge _____________/S/___________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge 9

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.