State v. Richardson
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.
TODD RAY RICHARDSON,
Appellant.
DIVISION ONE
FILED: 09/20/2011
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
CLERK
BY: GH
1 CA-CR 10-0738
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(Not for Publication –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. CR2009-007847-001 DT
The Honorable Julie P. Newell, Judge Pro Tempore
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
Joel M. Glynn, 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 Todd Ray Richardson has advised
us that, after searching the entire record, he 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 did not file a supplemental brief.
FACTS 1
¶2
A car stopped near 15th Avenue
around
midnight
on
April
28,
2009.
and Cocopah Street 2
Phoenix
police
officer
Neuhaus watched the car and, as he drove closer in his patrol
car
and
turned
on
his
overhead
lights,
the
car
drove
away.
Defendant, who had been talking with the occupants of the car,
was left standing in the middle of the street.
yelled at him to get out of the street.
The officer
Defendant did not move,
and remained in the middle of the street even after the officer
got out of his car and repeatedly told him to get out of the
street.
Instead of moving, Defendant challenged the officer’s
authority to make him move.
The officer, who knew Defendant was a gang member, 3
¶3
handcuffed
Defendant
so
that
he
1
could
write
a
citation
for
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
There was testimony that the neighborhood where Defendant was
arrested is the territory of the West Side City Crips, a street
gang.
3
Other police officers also testified that Defendant was a gang
member.
2
obstructing the roadway.
Defendant, however, told the officer
that he was going to get him; a statement that the officer took
as
a
threat
of
physical
harm.
After
other
police
officers
arrived and Officer Neuhaus was getting information from his
patrol computer, Defendant looked at him and yelled, “I’m going
to get your ass,” as well as words threatening members of the
officer’s family — “somebody’s going to die.” 4
Officer Neuhaus
subsequently put Defendant in his patrol car and took him to
jail.
¶4
Defendant
was
indicted
for
allegedly
threatening
or
intimidating conduct towards Officers Neuhaus (Count 1), Madura
(Count
2),
allegations
and
Holton
(Count
that
Defendant
3).
intended
The
to
State
promote,
also
filed
further,
or
assist criminal conduct by a criminal street gang, 5 allegations
of
historical
priors
and
allegations
of
aggravating
circumstances other than prior convictions.
¶5
The case proceeded to trial.
After the State rested,
Defendant made a motion pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal
Procedure 20, which was denied.
The defense then rested.
The
trial court gave the jury its final instructions and the lawyers
4
There was also testimony that Defendant, while handcuffed and
seated on the ground, made threatening statements to Officers
Holton and Madura after they arrived to provide backup for
Officer Neuhaus.
5
The trial court granted the State’s motion to withdraw the
allegation that Defendant acted to promote or assist a criminal
street gang.
3
made
their
closing
arguments.
The
jury,
after
weighing
the
evidence, determining credibility and deciding the facts, found
Defendant guilty of threatening or intimidating conduct toward
Officer Neuhaus and also found that he was a member of the West
Side City Crips, a criminal street gang.
The jury, however,
acquitted him of the other two counts.
¶6
There was a sentencing hearing on September 1, 2010,
and the trial court found that Defendant had five prior felony
convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.
After presentation of
aggravating and mitigating factors, Defendant was sentenced to
an aggravated prison term of four years and given presentence
incarceration credit for 85 days.
¶7
A notice of appeal was filed, and we have jurisdiction
pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution,
and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1)
(2010), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010).
DISCUSSION
¶8
We
pleadings,
have
and
read
the
the
trial
considered counsel’s brief.
See
Leon,
104
Ariz.
at
entire
court’s
record
of
the
rulings.
We
trial,
the
have
also
We have found no reversible error.
300,
451
P.2d
at
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
4
at
all
stages
of
the
proceedings, the jury was properly instructed, and the sentence
imposed was within the statutory limits.
CONCLUSION
¶9
After
this
to
represent
obligation
decision
has
Defendant
been
in
filed,
this
appeal
counsel’s
has
ended.
Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of
the
appeal
review
and
reveals
Defendant’s
an
issue
future
options,
appropriate
for
unless
submission
Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review.
Shattuck,
140
Ariz.
582,
585,
684
P.2d
counsel’s
to
the
See State v.
154,
157
(1984).
Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or
petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
¶10
Accordingly,
we
affirm
Defendant’s
conviction
and
sentence.
/s/
________________________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/
____________________________
LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge
/s/
____________________________
PATRICK IRVINE, 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.
