State v. Thornton

 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. ) ) CRAIG CLAY THORNTON, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/07/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CR 10-0451 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-115945-004DT The Honorable Paul J. McMurdie, Judge 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 Spencer D. Heffel, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d (defendant) 878 has (1969). advised Counsel us that, for after Craig Clay searching Thornton the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting that this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 At defendant s request, however, his counsel asks this court to search the record for error with regard to six issues: (1) that the trial court erred by not severing defendant s case from that evidence of his deriving co-defendant, primarily Braxton, from his for trial; that Hurd, was co-defendant, (2) insufficient to support defendant s convictions; (3) that the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it must weigh evidence against each co-defendant individually and could acquit one while finding the other defendant guilty; (4) that the trial court during erred by telling deliberation, the that jury, they in could response not to change a question the charges brought against the defendants; (5) that defendant was denied an impartial trial because the jury was not a fair cross-section of the community, because no persons of his race were on the jury panel; and, (6) that defendant s alibi witnesses were not called 2 to testify, although subpoenaed by the State. ¶3 Our obligation reversible error. is to review the entire record for State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). favorable to We view the facts in the light most sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Thornton. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. (1989). 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶4 In January unlawfully entered burglarize the believed the Defendant victim s residence, contained marijuana. 2009, $200,000 and four residence, which defendant cash and a accomplices intending and large to accomplices quantity Defendant and another accomplice were armed. of When defendant and accomplices entered the home, the victim stood up from the couch everything, don t and said, hurt Don t me. hurt Defendant accomplice both shot at the victim. me. and You the can other have armed Defendant and accomplices then fled the residence, taking nothing. The victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds, which were determined by the medical examiner to have caused his death. ¶5 Defendant was charged with one count of first degree murder, a class 1 dangerous felony, one count of attempted armed robbery, a class 3 dangerous felony, and one count of burglary in the first degree, a class 3 2 dangerous felony. A jury convicted defendant of all counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to a life sentence in prison with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years for count one, a presumptive sentence of seven-and-a-half years in prison for count two, and a presumptive sentence of ten-and-a-half years in prison for count three, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Defendant received 447 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶6 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. See Leon, 104 We find no reversible error pertaining to defendant s alleged claims of error or otherwise. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria reconsideration or petition for review. 4 persona motion for ¶7 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ _________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, 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.