State v. Alley

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. 31.34 DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/15/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAVID LANCE ALLEY, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 11-0403 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2006-031100-001 SE The Honorable Jeffrey Rueter, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, 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 T I M M E R, Presiding Judge ¶1 that David Lance Alley appeals the superior court s finding he violated the terms of probation and its order reinstating three years probation and imposing a sentence of one month in jail. with Smith v. Alley s counsel filed a brief in accordance Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, he found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. This court granted Alley an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. appeal pursuant Constitution and to We have jurisdiction to consider this Article Arizona 6, Revised Section Statutes 9, of the Arizona ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031, 13-4033(A)(1) and (3) (2010). For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION ¶2 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969). We find none. The record shows that Alley was represented by counsel at all stages of the probation revocation and disposition proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Alley all his rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Alley s disposition falls within the range prescribed by law. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. 2 CONCLUSION ¶3 After the filing of this decision, counsel s obligations pertaining to Alley s representation in this appeal have ended. status of Counsel need do no more than inform Alley of the the appeal and Alley s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Alley shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm the court s finding and sentence. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Patrick Irvine, Judge /s/ Daniel A. Barker, Judge 3

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.