State v. Young

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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/09/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) BRYAN P. YOUNG, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) No. 1 CA-CR 10-0788 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-137247-001 DT The Honorable Randall H. Warner, 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 Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Bryan P. Young Appellant Safford D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 Bryan P. Young appeals his conviction for unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a class five felony and violation of 28-622.01. Arizona Pursuant Revised to Statutes Anders v. ( A.R.S. ) California, 386 section U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense question counsel of has law, fundamental error. searched and asked the record, that we found review no the arguable record for See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339, 857 P.2d 388, 391 (App. 1993). in propria persona. 1 Young filed a supplemental brief On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction. State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552, 633 P.2d 355, 361 (1981). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Officer vehicle. Rankin was on patrol in a marked police When he pulled up next to a Chevrolet Cavalier, the driver looked over at him and quickly turned away. The officer checked the Cavalier s registration and found it was registered to Bryan Young. support arrest A warrant check revealed an outstanding child warrant for Young. The physical description accompanying the warrant listed Young as 6 3 , average build, in 1 Although Young s supplemental brief was untimely, we have nevertheless considered it. 2 his mid-20 s, with dark black hair. Officer Rankin compared Cavalier s driver. the To the extent he could, physical description to the He also noted that the driver was wearing a dark shirt. ¶3 When the vehicles headed southbound on Loop 101, the officer pulled behind the Cavalier and watched the car drift in and out of its lane. Officer Rankin turned on his emergency lights and attempted to make a traffic stop. When the Cavalier merged to the left, rather than the customary right, Officer Rankin turned on his siren. The Cavalier quickly accelerated to eighty or ninety miles per hour. vehicle, radio. the officer called out Unable to safely pursue the a fail to yield over the Officer Rankin observed the Cavalier cross three lanes of traffic, in an attempt to exit at Cactus Road. Missing the exit, the Cavalier spun to a stop, resting perpendicular to the roadway. toward It then completed a U-turn and traveled northbound the Cactus Road exit. Officer Rankin radioed the incident to other officers, providing a physical description of the driver and Young s address. Using a laptop computer, he pulled up a picture of Young, which the officer recognized as somebody looking like the driver [he] had just seen in the Chevy Cavalier. ¶4 Officer Hawkinson went to Young s apartment. He saw Young, who was wearing a white shirt, walk past the apartment 3 building and then turn around and walk back toward his unit. When the officer tried to approach him, Young walked up the stairs, ran into his apartment, and shut his door. knocked, but Young did not respond. The officer Officer Hawkinson looked for the Cavalier and located it at a business complex just north of Young s apartment complex. ¶5 At trial, the defense presented evidence that, on the date of the offense, Young had blond hair and had been working at a restaurant shirts. where employees were required to wear white The jury found Young guilty of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. The State proved that Young had one historical conviction. mitigated prior term felony of 1.5 years jurisdiction Arizona pursuant Constitution, and court imprisonment, presentence incarceration credit. have The to with imposed 61 days Young timely appealed. Article A.R.S. §§ 6, Section 9, 12-120.21(A)(1), of a of We the 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1). DISCUSSION ¶6 We have read and considered the opening supplemental briefs and have reviewed the entire record. find no conducted fundamental in error. compliance with All the of the Arizona proceedings Rules of and We were Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory range. Young was present at 4 all critical phases of the proceedings and was represented by properly impaneled and instructed. counsel. The jury was The jury instructions were consistent with the offense charged. The record reflects no irregularity in the deliberation process. A. Insufficiency of Evidence ¶7 Young argues support his conviction. of evidence occurs there was insufficient evidence to Reversible error based on insufficiency only if there is a complete absence substantial evidence to support the conviction. of State v. Sullivan, 187 Ariz. 599, 603, 931 P.2d 1109, 1113 (App. 1996). Substantial evidence is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (citation omitted). ¶8 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-622.01, the State was required to prove that Young willfully eluded a pursuing, appropriately marked, law enforcement vehicle. Young does not dispute that Officer Rankin s patrol car was appropriately marked or that the Cavalier evaded the officer s pursuit by traveling at speeds in excess of eighty miles per hour. the driver. Rather, he contends he was not Young points to testimony by his former boss and a co-worker that, on the date in question, his hair was blond, and he was wearing a white shirt. 5 According to Young, this undermined Officer Rankin s testimony that he made a positive comparison between Young s photograph and the person he saw driving the Cavalier. ¶9 No rule is better established than that the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be given to jury. their testimony are questions exclusively for the State v. Clemons, 110 Ariz. 555, 556-57, 521 P.2d 987, 988-89 (1974); see also State v. Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509, 517, ¶ 24, 38 P.3d 1172, 1180 (2002). Although the defense presented colorable claims, reasonable jurors could have found the State s evidence more credible than defendant s in terms of the driver s identity. There was substantial evidence to support the verdict. B. ¶10 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel We do not assistance of counsel. 2 address Young s claims of ineffective Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are properly brought under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32. Any such claims improvidently raised in a direct appeal . . . will not be 2 To the extent Young suggests a violation of his right to a speedy trial, we find no error. Under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.5(b), a continuance must be granted only upon a showing that extraordinary circumstances exist and that delay is indispensable to the interests of justice. The record reflects that Young s counsel requested the continuances due to conflicts with other trials, or to secure the attendance of a defense witness with limited availability. Young was released on bail pending trial. 6 addressed by appellate courts regardless of merit. State v. Sprietz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 525, 527 (2002). C. ¶11 Preliminary Hearing Young also argues the trial court erred by finding probable cause to believe he had committed the charged offense. This issue is now moot, as a jury has found Young guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Agnew, 132 Ariz. 567, 573, 647 P.2d 1165, 1171 (App. 1982) (finding a challenge to grand jury s probable cause determination moot after conviction). CONCLUSION ¶12 We affirm Young s conviction and sentence. Counsel s obligations pertaining to Young s representation in this appeal have ended. the status Counsel need do nothing more than inform Young of 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. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). 7 On the court s own motion, Young shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition review. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 8 for

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.