STATE v. PHILLIPS

 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. BILLY W. PHILLIPS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 12-0006 DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/11/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. S8015CR2011 The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellant Defender Office Kingman By Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellant Defender Attorneys for Appellant N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 and Billy W. Phillips timely appeals from his convictions sentences for detection devices. two counts of unlawful removal of theft After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Phillips counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. This court permitted Phillips to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, therefore, affirm Phillips convictions and sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 observed On a electronics May man 9, -- 2011, Phillips department. The an -- employee acting employee of a retail suspiciously reported what store in the he had observed to another employee who reviewed a store surveillance video that showed Phillips unsuccessfully using a tool in an attempt to remove a theft detection device from a GPS unit. This employee also reviewed a surveillance video from the next day, May 10, 2011, which showed Phillips successfully removing the theft detection device from the GPS unit. The video showed Phillips placing it in his shopping basket, entering the store s 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Phillips. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 restroom, leaving the restroom, and then leaving the store. The store did not find the GPS unit in the restroom. ¶3 On May 12, 2011, Phillips returned to the store and store employees saw him take something and put it under his shirt. Phillips then entered a fitting room and, after Phillips left the fitting room, a store employee found a theft detection device, wrappings, and tags for a set of headphones. A store employee called police and police arrested Phillips as he was attempting to leave the store. A store employee located the headphones in a frozen food freezer. officer advised Phillips of his Miranda ultimately After a police rights, 2 Phillips identified himself in still photographs taken from the May 9th and 10th surveillance videos. Phillips told police he had hidden a gaming system behind some pillows in a different area of the store. He denied, however, cutting the antitheft device off the GPS unit and taking the headphones. ¶4 A jury convicted Phillips of both counts as charged. After the jury returned the verdicts, the court, based on testimony and evidence presented by the State, found Phillips had one sentence historical prior enhancement. felony The conviction court sentenced for purposes Phillips to of a slightly mitigated prison term of 1.5 years on each count with 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). 3 the sentences ( A.R.S. ) § to run consecutively. 13-703(B)(2)(I) (Supp. See Ariz. 2011). Rev. The Stat. court gave Phillips 134 days of presentence incarceration credit. 3 DISCUSSION ¶5 We have reviewed error and find none. 881. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at Phillips received a fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages. ¶6 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdicts. members and the The jury was properly comprised of eight court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Phillips presumption of innocence, the State s burden verdict. The presentence of proof, superior report, and the court Phillips, necessity received through of and a unanimous considered counsel, spoke a at sentencing and the court imposed sentences within the range of acceptable sentences for his offenses. 3 Although we note the superior court gave Phillips credit for one extra day of presentence incarceration credit, see State v. Hamilton, 153 Ariz. 244, 246, 735 P.2d 854, 856 (App. 1987) ( Where the date sentence is imposed serves, as here, as the first day of sentence . . . it does not also count for presentence credit . . . . ), we will not correct sentencing errors that benefit a defendant, in the context of his own appeal, absent a proper appeal or cross-appeal by the state. State v. Kinslow, 165 Ariz. 503, 507, 799 P.2d 844, 848 (1990). 4 CONCLUSION ¶7 We decline to order briefing and affirm Phillips convictions and sentences. ¶8 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining appeal have ended. to Phillips representation in this Defense counsel need do no more than inform Phillips of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds 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). ¶9 Phillips has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. days On the court s own motion, we also grant Phillips 30 from the date of this decision to file an in persona motion for reconsideration. /s/ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Presiding Judge /s/ DONN KESSLER, Judge 5 propria

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.