State v. Young

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. BILLY RAY YOUNG, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 11-16-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 10-0284 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-178226-001 DT The Honorable Cari A. Harrison, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Thomas Baird, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 738 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Billy Ray Young has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant did not take the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. FACTS 1 ¶2 Defendant removed a screen from a slightly open living room window in the early morning hours of December 16, 2008. He was partway inside when he was scared off after being confronted by the armed homeowner. small white car. Defendant ran, and eventually fled in a Within a short time, the police located and stopped the car. The car was occupied by Defendant, his cousin, John Mesa s Mesa, and girlfriend, Helen Ahumada. Police conducted a showup and Defendant was subsequently identified by the homeowner. ¶3 Defendant was charged with second degree burglary, a class three officer who felony. located In and addition stopped to the the car, homeowner the and the investigating officer testified at trial that he noticed a shoeprint outside of the window whose tread pattern matched Defendant s muddy shoes. 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 ¶4 the Mesa testified on Defendant s behalf that he committed crime while his girlfriend was asleep in the car, Defendant was not present at the time of the incident. and On cross examination, Mesa s story fell apart because he did not know certain crucial details. Ahumada, on the other hand, testified that she lied to the police when she told them Defendant was with her and Mesa during the burglary. ¶5 the After jury being convicted instructed Young as and determining charged. He was credibility, subsequently sentenced to 11.25 years in prison as a result of his prior felony convictions and being on release status. He was also given 206 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶6 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶7 We have read and considered counsel s brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at We find none. 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was The record, as presented, reveals that represented by counsel 3 at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶8 After this to represent obligation decision has Defendant been in filed, this appeal counsel s has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal review and reveals Defendant s an issue future options, appropriate for unless submission Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d counsel s to the See State v. 154, 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶9 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge /s/ ____________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge 4

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.