State v. St. Clair
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. JARED DANIEL ST. CLAIR, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 10-0260 DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/24/11 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR-2009-130094-001DT The Honorable Julie P. Newell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Bruce F. Peterson, Legal Advocate By Consuelo M. Ohanesian, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B A R K E R, Judge ¶1 Jared Daniel St. Clair ( St. Clair ) appeals his conviction for one count of theft of a means of transportation, a class three felony. St. Clair was sentenced on March 18, 2010, to a twelve-year sentence based in part on his two prior historical felony appeal March on convictions. 30, 2010. He His timely filed a notice of 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 this court that after searching the entire record on appeal, he found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. We granted St. Clair leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona on or before February 7, 2011, and he did not do so. Facts and Procedural History 1 ¶2 On May 1, 2009, the victim in this case had his car stolen from a gas station. Two days later, while the victim was standing in front of the bar where he worked as a bouncer, he saw his truck being driven into the parking lot. The victim approached the truck and then jumped into the passenger seat to secure it. At that time, St. Clair, who had been driving the vehicle, was standing outside of the driver s side door. 1 The We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the court s judgment and resolve all inferences against St. Clair. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998); State v. Moore, 183 Ariz. 183, 186, 901 P.2d 1213, 1216 (App. 1995). 2 victim noticed St. Clair was wearing a football jersey that was in the truck when it was stolen. The victim, visibly upset and using profanity, asked St. Clair why he was in the truck and where his stuff was. St. Clair responded that he had rented the truck from someone for the weekend for $70. During this time, seven or eight people exited from the bar. St. Clair started to back the up and around him. frantically look around at people standing He then tossed the keys to the truck and attempted to run away, but he tripped. After using physical force to stop St. Clair, the bar patrons and the cook from the bar secured him. When the group asked him about the initially said that the truck was not his. truck, St. Clair St. Clair later changed his story and told the group that he had purchased the truck for $1500, although he did not know where he bought it, who he had bought it from, or what the seller looked like. While being detained by the bar s cook, St. Clair repeatedly stated that he could not believe what had happened and that he did not want to go to jail. After learning that someone had called the police, he offered the cook $1500 to let him go. When the police arrived, St. Clair told the officer that he had rented the truck for the weekend for $70. He claimed that the rental offer included permission to keep the football jersey that was in the truck. 3 ¶3 St. Clair was later charged with one count of theft of a means of transportation, a class three felony. St. Clair was sentenced on March 18, 2010, and timely filed a notice of appeal on March 30, 2010. Section 9, Statutes of We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, the Arizona ( A.R.S. ) Constitution Arizona Revised 12-120.21(A)(1) sections and (2003), 13-4031 (2001), and 13-4033(A) (2001). record for reversible error. We are required to search the Finding no such error, we affirm. Disposition ¶4 We have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious grounds for reversal of St. Clair s conviction or for modification of the sentence imposed. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. present at represented all by critical counsel. stages All of the St. Clair was proceedings proceedings were and conducted was in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶5 After the filing of this decision, counsel s obligations in this appeal have ended subject to the following. Counsel need do no more than inform St. Clair of the status of the appeal review Arizona and reveals Supreme St. an Clair s issue Court by future options, appropriate for petition for unless counsel s submission review. to State the v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). St. Clair has thirty days from the date of this decision to 4 proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ __________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge /s/ ____________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, 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.
