State v. Lamb

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. ROBERT WAYNE LAMB, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/21/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 10-0623 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-030254-001 SE The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, 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 Terry J. Reid, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 738 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Robert Wayne Lamb has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 Tempe police received reports that a man was walking near downtown Tempe with a rifle on September 14, 2007. Officer Kelch was dispatched and saw Defendant carrying a hunting rifle. He stopped his car, got out, and three times ordered Defendant to drop the gun. Instead of complying, Defendant pointed the rifle at Officer Kelch. Fearing for his life, Officer Kelch fired twice and struck Defendant. Defendant put down the rifle after Officer Kelch s gun malfunctioned when he attempted to fire a third shot. ¶3 Defendant was treated at a local hospital, released six hours later, and immediately arrested. After having his Miranda 2 rights read to him, Defendant agreed to be interviewed. Defendant admitted pointing the rifle at Officer Kelch and stated that he wanted to kill every goddamn cop in the state. 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 ¶4 Defendant was subsequently indicted assault, a class 2 dangerous felony. for aggravated He was tried. The jury was given the proper instructions and determined that the State had met its burden of proof. As a result, Defendant was convicted as charged, and the jury determined that the offense was dangerous. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to an aggravated term of twelve years in prison with 823 days credit for time served, and a consecutive term of community supervision. ¶5 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶6 We have read and considered counsel s brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at We find none. 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was The record, as presented, reveals that represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 3 CONCLUSION ¶7 After obligation to this decision represent has Defendant in been this filed, appeal counsel s has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal reveals an and his issue future options, appropriate for unless submission Supreme Court by petition for review. counsel s to the review Arizona See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d 154, 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, or file a motion for reconsideration petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ _____________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _______________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ _______________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 4

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.