State v. Mintz

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. GETTUS LEROY MINTZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 11-30-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 10-0188 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-005503-001 DT The Honorable Richard J. Trujillo, Judge 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 Consuelo O. Ohanesian, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant H A L L, Judge Phoenix Phoenix ¶1 Gettus Leroy Mintz 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 February 19, 2009, defendant was charged by indictment with one count of second degree murder (victim P.T.), a class one felony and a domestic violence offense, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-1104(A)(1) (2010), and one count of aggravated assault (victim A.W.), a class three dangerous felony and a domestic violence offense, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(1), (2) (Supp. 2010). 2 ¶5 The following evidence was presented at trial. In the late evening of February 9, 2009, Officer R.V. of the Peoria Police Department responded to a 9-1-1 hang-up call. As the officer approached the area of 82nd Avenue and Yucca, residents directed him to a bench in the neighborhood. The officer observed an African-American female (P.T.) sitting on a bench slumped over covered with blood. When Officer R.V. attempted to speak with the victim, she was unresponsive, her eyes were rolled back and . . . [s]he was gurgling blood. ¶6 Officer R.V. then followed P.T. s blood trail to a red car parked a couple of houses away from the bench, which was later determined to be P.T. s home. The officer observed another African-American woman (A.W.) with blood and lacerations on her face and arms exit the home. determined that A.W. was P.T. s mother. The officer later A.W. had sustained two injuries to her right shoulder, one to her left scapula, and one to the top of her head. Both victims were treated at the scene and then transported to John C. Lincoln North Hospital. ¶7 Doctor M.F. of the Maricopa County Medical Examiner s Office testified that he observed nine stab wounds to P.T. s body. The doctor further testified that the cause of death was complications of the multiple stab wounds. ¶8 A.W. testified that in the evening of February 9, 2009, she heard a knock on the door and then someone using the 3 keys to get in the door. Defendant entered the home and A.W. heard P.T. say Gettus, get what you need. A few moments later, she heard P.T. scream Mom, Gettus is trying to kill me. A.W. tried to call 9-1-1, but defendant knocked the phone out of her hand and slam dunked her on the floor. Defendant then punched A.W. s head, back and shoulders. ¶9 A.W. testified that holding a butcher knife. help me. defendant ran out of the room A.W. again heard P.T. say somebody Gettus is trying to kill me. A.W. later testified that when she was trying to get up from the floor, there was a blade on the floor. ¶10 After a six-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. historical The trial court found that defendant had two prior felony convictions and sentenced defendant to an aggravated term of 22 years on the count of second-degree murder and to a presumptive term of 20 years on the count of aggravated assault. The trial court also ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. ¶11 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. We find none. See Leon, 104 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 sentences imposed were within 4 statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted. ¶12 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant s Counsel need decision, counsel s representation do 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, 15657 (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, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge . /s/ PETER B. SWANN, 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.