State v. Takala
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. ) ) JAYME ROOSEVELT TAKALA, ) ) Appellant. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/03/2011 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 08-0793 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County Cause No. S-0900-CR-20070689 The Honorable Thomas L. Wing, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Law Office of Marsha Gregory, P.C. By Marsha A. Gregory Attorney for Appellant Jayme Roosevelt Takala Appellant W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge Phoenix Springerville Tucson ¶1 Jayme Roosevelt Takala ( Appellant ) appeals his convictions and sentences resulting from a deadly car collision. 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. therefore review the record for fundamental error. We See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this reversible error). court reviews the entire record for In addition, this court granted Appellant the opportunity to file a 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 convictions and sentences. I. ¶3 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY sustaining We review the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict against Appellant. and resolve all reasonable inferences See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994). 2 ¶4 On June 28, 2007, a grand jury issued an indictment, charging Appellant with eleven counts, including second degree murder, aggravated assault, criminal damage, and aggravated DUI. 1 ¶5 At trial, the State presented the following evidence: On June 23, 2007, Appellant purchased seven or eight shots of Apple 99, an alcoholic beverage, and consumed them periodically while working as a cook at Burger King. p.m., a co-worker, Patrick sitting in his truck. Barela At approximately 10:30 ( Patrick ), saw Appellant Patrick approached Appellant to inquire why he wasn t inside working and noticed Appellant s speech was slurred and the smell of alcohol on his breath. half-hour later, Patrick and Carlos Barela Approximately a ( Carlos ) were driving in front of the Burger King and noticed Appellant pull out of the parking lot. Concerned that Appellant was intoxicated, Patrick rolled down the passenger side window and asked Appellant, What are you doing? Patrick told Appellant to pull over and stop . . . and let one of us drive before he hurt somebody. Instead, Appellant began swerving in and out of traffic lanes while driving at a high rate of speed. Minutes later, Carlos drove up a hill on Navajo Boulevard, where he saw Appellant s Chevrolet truck Impala lodged on fire. inside the Appellant 1 Hilltop had Café, collided and with a the Before trial, Appellant s second degree murder charges were reduced to manslaughter. 3 Impala Drive. 2 at the An intersection accident of Navajo Boulevard reconstructionist and estimated Hermosa Appellant s speed at impact to be at least eighty-five miles per hour. An emergency medical technician who arrived at the scene reported that he smelled alcohol on Appellant s breath. Appellant was taken to the hospital, where his blood was taken. His blood alcohol level was later determined to be .31. ¶6 Carlos and others were able to pull C.S. out of the burning Impala, but were unable to rescue two other people in the vehicle. The burnt remains of two-year-old L.T. and twenty- six-year old S.R. were found in the burned Impala. Although C.S. survived, the baby she was pregnant with did not. C.S. and the occupants of the Pontiac received injuries as a result of the collision. ¶7 Appellant waived his right bench trial began on July 9, 2008. 3 convicted of the following offenses: manslaughter, each a class two to a jury trial, and a Appellant was subsequently Counts I, II, and III, dangerous felony; Count IV, aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony; Count VII, 2 It was later discovered that a third vehicle, a Pontiac Sunfire, was also involved in the collision. The Pontiac had been struck by the burning Impala immediately after Appellant s vehicle collided with the Impala. 3 The waiver included an agreement between Appellant and the State to reduce Appellant s second degree murder charges to lesser-included charges of dangerous nature manslaughter. 4 criminal driving damage, while a class under felony; influence the five of Count X, aggravated intoxicating liquor, a class four felony; and Count XI, aggravated driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 or more, a class four felony. ¶8 The court sentenced Appellant to the following terms of incarceration: Count I, an aggravated term of fifteen years in the Arizona Department of Corrections ( ADC ), consecutive to the sentence imposed in Count II; Count II, an aggravated term of twelve years in ADC, consecutive to the sentence imposed in Counts III, IV, VII, X, and XI; Count III, an aggravated term of thirteen years in ADC; Count IV, an aggravated term of ten years in ADC; Count VII, an aggravated term of two years in ADC; and Counts X and XI, two and one-half years in ADC. 4 credited served Appellant on the for 427 sentences days for of presentence Counts 3, 4, 7, The court incarceration 10, and 11. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. ¶9 ANALYSIS In his supplemental brief, Appellant has raised one issue, arguing the record discloses only scant evidence of a waiver of trial by jury; but nothing voluntary and intelligent waiver. 4 approaching a knowing, We have reviewed the record Subsequently, Appellant was ordered to pay restitution to the victims involved in the collision, the owner of the Hilltop Café, and the Victim s Assistance Program. 5 and find that Appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial. ¶10 At a motions hearing on June 30, 2008, Appellant s counsel presented a waiver agreement signed by Appellant, his counsel, and counsel for the State. In the agreement, Appellant agreed to waive his right to a jury trial in exchange for, as previously noted, the State s agreement to reduce the second degree murder charges to dangerous nature manslaughter charges. The court advised Appellant in detail about waiving his right to a jury trial. the judge, not Specifically, the court advised Appellant that the jury, would be deciding his guilt sentence, and the court explained the burden of proof. and The court further explained the jury selection process to Appellant and advised him that process would not take place at a bench trial. The Appellant acknowledged he understood all of the above. court also Appellant and discussing, Appellant described the detail State. understanding, also in Appellant and confirmed the he signing had not agreement admitted the been waiver coerced between reading, agreement. into the waiver, had no alcohol, drugs, or medication within the previous twenty-four himself hours, and acknowledged at he was the thinking hearing that freely, and voluntarily entered the waiver. 6 clearly. he Appellant intelligently, The record supports the conclusion that Appellant s waiver of his right to a jury trial was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. ¶11 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 verdicts, and the sentences were within the statutory limits. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the filing of this Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶12 After obligations appeal have pertaining ended. to 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. 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 reconsideration or petition for review. 7 pro per motion for III. CONCLUSION ¶13 Appellant s convictions and sentences are affirmed. _______________/S/___________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ______________/S/__________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge _____________/S/___________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 8
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.
