STATE v. ODOM

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: 08/28/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) THOMAS JAMES ODOM, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) No. 1 CA-CR 11-0609 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-121445-001 The Honorable Karen L. O Connor, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Michael J. Dew Attorney for Appellant Phoenix S W A N N, Judge ¶1 Defendant Thomas James Odom appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder. appeal under Anders This case comes to us as an v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Defendant s appellate counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable nonfrivolous question of law and asks us to review the record for fundamental error. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. ¶2 find none. We have searched the record for fundamental error and Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 In April 2010, Defendant was indicted for sexual assault and first-degree murder, charged in the alternative as premeditated or felony murder. He was arraigned and entered a not guilty plea, and he was found competent to stand trial after undergoing evaluation pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 11. ¶4 At trial, following facts. the state presented evidence of the The afternoon of April 21, 2010, in El Mirage, Arizona, the fifteen-year-old victim was last seen leaving a local library and walking down the street with the sixteen-yearold Defendant. That evening, police received a report that the victim s dead body had been found in a nearby culvert. Police entered the culvert and saw a corpse partially covered with sand and surrounded by rocks, at least one of which had blood on it. The victim s shirt was pulled up, she wore no pants, and freshlooking injuries were apparent on her body. 2 An autopsy revealed that she had facial lacerations, abrasions, and contusions; multiple skull fractures; and a subarachnoid hemorrhage. She also had abrasions on her trunk and extremities and sand in her trachea. The medical examiner opined that the victim s cause of death was multiple blunt force traumas, and the manner of death was homicide. ¶5 The day after the victim s corpse was discovered, police brought Defendant to the police station for an interview. At trial, the jury viewed a video recording of the interview. At the start of the interview, a detective read from a form to advise Defendant of his rights under Miranda and of his right to have a parent or guardian present during questioning. asked to have his father present. Accordingly, Defendant except for completing the questions on the Miranda form, police asked no more questions of Defendant until his father arrived. alone with present, Defendant Defendant s happened. in the father interview questioned room, without Defendant about Left police what Interpreting the recording of the whispered exchange, the state s case agent testified that Defendant confessed to his father that he killed the victim. ¶6 Police observed injuries on Defendant s body at the time of his arrest, and DNA testing revealed the victim s blood on Defendant s Defendant s wristwatch. former Police cellmate, who 3 were later reported contacted that by Defendant confessed to having killed his girlfriend. According to the former cellmate, Defendant stated that he had told the victim to accompany him into the culvert to smoke marijuana, and once there, he choked her, wrestled her, beat her, threw stones at her head, filled her mouth with sand, and removed her clothes. The former cellmate testified that Defendant explained he did this because he had always wanted to do it, and there was a voice in his head telling him to do it. ¶7 At the conclusion of the state s case in chief, Defendant moved for judgments of acquittal on both counts. motions were denied. testimony of various The For his defense, Defendant offered the third-party witnesses, but he did evidence, the jury not testify. ¶8 After considering the found Defendant guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and found that the Defendant murder not was guilty a of dangerous sexual offense. assault. The The jury court found entered judgment on the verdict and sentenced Defendant to natural life in prison. sentence. Defendant timely appeals his conviction and We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1). 4 DISCUSSION ¶9 The record reveals no fundamental error. The state properly prosecuted Defendant in the same manner as an adult pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-501(A)(1), and he was found competent to stand trial after the procedures prescribed by Ariz. R. Crim. P. 11 were completed. Defendant was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages. The record of voir dire does not demonstrate the empanelment of any biased jurors, and the jury was properly comprised of twelve jurors and two alternates. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a); A.R.S. § 21-102(A). ¶10 The evidence that the state presented at trial was properly admissible. The state presented evidence that Defendant was the last person seen with the victim, had the victim s blood on his wristwatch, had injuries on his body, and told others that he had killed her. evidence that at least one bloody The state also presented rock was found near the victim s body, and her cause of death was multiple blunt force traumas. to find The state s evidence was sufficient to allow the jury Defendant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder under A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(1) and to find that the murder was a dangerous offense under A.R.S. §§ 13-105 and 13-704 because it involved the use of the rocks as dangerous Further, the jury was properly instructed. 5 instruments. ¶11 After the jury returned its verdict, received and considered a presentence report. the court At the sentencing hearing, Defendant was given the opportunity to speak, and the court stated on the record the evidence and materials considered and the factors it found in imposing sentence. it The court, in its discretion, imposed a legal sentence of natural life in prison and correctly calculated Defendant s presentence incarceration. CONCLUSION ¶12 find We have reviewed the record for fundamental error and none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. 6 881. ¶13 Defense counsel s appeal have come to an end. obligations pertaining to this See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Unless, upon review, counsel discovers an issue appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel must only inform Defendant of the status of this appeal and his future options. Id. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to file a petition for review in propria persona. 31.19(a). See Ariz. R. Crim. P. Upon the court s own motion, Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to file a motion for reconsideration. /s/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ____________________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge 7

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.