State v. Holden
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.
MARCEL D. HOLDEN,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DIVISION ONE
FILED: 09/29/2011
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
CLERK
BY: DLL
No. 1 CA-CR 10-0732
DEPARTMENT A
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2009-006770-001 DT
The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By
Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel
Criminal Appeals Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
By
Thomas K. Baird, 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
us
Counsel
that,
for
after
Marcel
D.
Holden
searching
the
entire
record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of
law
and
has
filed
a
brief
requesting
Anders review of the record.
this
court
conduct
an
Defendant has been afforded an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and
he has not done so.
¶2
Around 2 a.m. defendant discovered his car had been
broken into after leaving the apartment of L.W., whom defendant
claimed was a prostitute,
and her roommate.
Suspecting the
involvement of L.W. defendant went back to her apartment.
altercation
ensued.
displayed a gun.
During
the
altercation
in the bathroom door.
away
when
defendant
L.W. ran and hid in the bathroom with her
roommate both fearing for their lives.
drove
the
An
he
Defendant kicked a hole
The defendant left the apartment and
heard
L.W.
talking
on
the
phone
to
the
police.
¶3
Shortly after L.W. called 911 an officer noticed the
defendant’s
car
based
upon
the
description
provided
by
L.W.
Defendant noticeably sped up when the officer began to follow
him.
The officer used the marked police car’s lights and siren.
Defendant did not pull over and continued until he could not see
police following him.
2
¶4
Defendant ran from his car and knocked on the door of
a random apartment belonging to a stranger, M.B.
answered,
defendant
kicked
the
door
open
and
When no one
went
inside.
M.B. called the police after waking up and seeing the defendant.
¶5
Defendant
left
M.B.’s
apartment
in
police
custody.
The police searched defendant and discovered a bag containing
marijuana in defendant’s pocket.
¶6
Defendant was charged with one count of burglary, two
counts of aggravated assault, one count of unlawful flight from
law enforcement, one count of criminal trespass, and one count
of
possession
counts
or
included
use
a
of
marijuana.
lesser
offense
The
of
aggravated
disorderly
assault
conduct.
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of
disorderly
conduct,
unlawful
flight,
criminal
trespass,
and
possession of marijuana.
Defendant was sentenced concurrently
to
disorderly
4.25
years
for
each
conduct,
1.5
years
for
unlawful flight, 1 year for criminal trespass, and 1 year for
possession.
Defendant
incarceration credit.
¶7
received
330
days
presentence
Defendant timely appealed.
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.
We find none.
See Leon, 104
All of the
proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules
of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the
3
statutory limits.
584-85,
684
P.2d
Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
154,
156-57
(1984),
defendant’s
counsel’s
obligations in this appeal are at an end.
¶8
We affirm the convictions and sentences.
/s/
______________________
JON W. THOMPSON, Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/
___________________________________
DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge
/s/
__________________________________
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, 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.
