State v. Williams

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. GREGORY J. WILLIAMS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/12/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL 1 CA-CR 10-0589 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-155999-001 SE The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona 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 Kathryn L. Petroff, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H A L L, Judge ¶1 Gregory J. Williams (defendant) convictions and the sentences imposed. appeals from his For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. ¶2 Defendant's appellate 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 that, after a diligent search of the record, she was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, & 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶3 We review for fundamental error, error that goes to the foundation of a case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense. See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424, 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988). We view the evidence presented at trial in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 182, & 2, 68 P.3d 407, 408 (2003). ¶4 aggravated Defendant was charged by indictment with: Count I: assault, a class three dangerous felony (victim G.C.), in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-1204(A)(2) (Supp. 2010); Count 2 II: aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony (victim J.M.) A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2); and Count III: in violation of false reporting to law enforcement agency, a class one misdemeanor, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2907.01(A) (2010). ¶5 The following evidence was presented at trial. The morning of September 7, 2008, G.C. and J.M. were driving home from the airport when another vehicle came flying out of a parking lot right in front of them. G.C. slammed on the brakes and hit the horn pretty aggressively. The vehicle stopped, the driver put the car in park, and then the driver reach[ed] out the window holding a gun gangster style. became frightened. I m sorry. G.C. and J.M. G.C. threw his hands up and started yelling J.M. called 9-1-1 and gave the operator a description of the vehicle and the license plate number while G.C. hightailed it to a shopping center parking lot to wait for the police. ¶6 The police later advised them to go home. Officer Jeffrey Vogt went to the victims residence and conducted the initial interview. After speaking with the victims, the officer broadcast a description of the driver and the vehicle, including the license plate number. ¶7 Detective Christopher Watson of the Scottsdale Police Department, while on patrol, responded to the call to locate the vehicle. He observed a vehicle matching the victims description and followed it until it stopped in an apartment 3 complex parking lot. vehicle, Detective Defendant When defendant, the driver, exited the Watson immediately ran yelled from out the police. scene, Don t but the move. passenger remained in the vehicle. ¶8 Shortly thereafter, Officer Vogt took separately to do a one-on-one identification. the victims Neither of the victims identified the passenger as the person pointing the gun. ¶9 Later that day, while maintaining the perimeter of the apartment matching complex, the Officer victims Luqman Khalid description. observed Officer a Khalid person took defendant into custody. ¶10 Officer Vogt again took the victims separately to do a one-on-one identification and both victims positively identified defendant. Officer Watson was present during the second show- up, and defendant provided a false name as well as a fictitious social security number and birth date. ¶11 On the third day of trial, the State moved to conform the indictment to evidence on Count II, changing the charge from aggravated assault to disorderly conduct. The trial court granted the motion. ¶12 After a four-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty on Count I, aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony, Count II, disorderly conduct, a class six dangerous felony, and Count III, false reporting to a law enforcement 4 agency, a class one misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced defendant 6 to the minimum term of years on Count I, the presumptive term of 2.25 years on Count II, and 6 months jail with credit for 6 months on Count III. Counts I and II are to be served concurrently. ¶13 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 none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentences imposed were within statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted. ¶14 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant's Counsel need do decision, counsel s representation no more than in this inform defendant of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for 5 reconsideration or petition for review. Accordingly, defendant's convictions and sentences are affirmed. _/s/____________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge CONCURRING: _/s/_________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Presiding Judge _/s/_________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 6

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.