State v. Croce

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. 31.34 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, v. JOHN ALLEN CROCE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 11-0174 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/06/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2004-005823-001 DT The Honorable Jeffrey Rueter, 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 Spencer D. Heffel, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T I M M E R, Presiding Judge ¶1 that John Allen Croce appeals the superior court s finding he violated the terms of his probation and its order reinstating lifetime intensive probation and imposing a sentence of thirty days in jail. Croce s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, he found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. This court granted Croce an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. appeal pursuant Constitution and to We have jurisdiction to consider this Article Arizona 6, Revised Section 9, the Arizona ( A.R.S. ) Statutes of sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031, 13-4033(A)(1) and (3) (2010). For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION ¶2 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record Ariz. at 300, 451 at 881. Croce was represented for reversible We find none. by counsel at error. Leon, 104 The record shows that all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Croce all his rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Croce s disposition falls within the range prescribed by law. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. 2 CONCLUSION ¶3 After the filing of this decision, counsel s obligations pertaining to Croce s representation in this appeal have ended. status of Counsel need do no more than inform Croce of the the appeal and Croce s 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). Croce shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm the superior court s finding and sentence. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Daniel A. Barker, Judge /s/ Patrick Irvine, Judge 3

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.