STATE v. COOK

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.Sup.Ct. 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. DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/31/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 12-0073 1 CA-CR 12-0075 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT B DONALD LEE COOK, Appellant. MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause Nos. CR2005-104441-001 SE CR2005-032990-001 SE The Honorable Connie Contes, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Paul J. Prato, Deputy Public Defender Attorney for Appellant Phoenix T H U M M A, Judge ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for defendant Donald Lee Cook ( Cook ) asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Additionally, Cook filed a supplemental brief in propria persona. After reviewing the record, and given we have previously affirmed his convictions, we affirm Cook s sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 ¶2 A jury found Cook guilty in CR 2005-032990 of seven counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and in CR 2005-104441 of one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, all class two felonies and consolidated dangerous sentencing crimes hearing against in children. October 2009, At Cook a was sentenced to the presumptive term of seventeen years in prison on all eight counts. The court ordered that all sentences in the 032990 matter run consecutively to the sentence in the 104441 matter. ¶3 This Court vacated those sentences in a memorandum decision in October 2011, resentencing because Cook 1 and was the cases were denied the right remanded to for represent We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court s judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Cook. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). himself at his sentencing hearing. See 1 CA-CR 09-0804 & -0808 (consolidated). Cook was resentenced at a consolidated sentencing hearing in January 2012, at which time he represented himself. He was resentenced to the presumptive term of seventeen years in prison for each of the eight counts, and the court again ordered that all sentences in the 032990 matter be served consecutively to the sentence in the 104441 matter. ¶4 Cook jurisdiction timely pursuant appeals to his Arizona sentences. Revised This Statutes court has ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (West 2012), 2 13-4031 and -4033(A). DISCUSSION 3 ¶5 Counsel diligent search for of Cook the advised entire this record, Court he that found no after a arguable question of law. ¶6 Cook claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal because his attorney refused to make certain arguments on appeal, informed him that he did not have the right to file a supplemental pro se brief and misinformed him about court procedures. We lack jurisdiction to address Cook s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Spreitz, 202 2 Absent material revisions to this decision, we cite the current Westlaw version of applicable statutes. 3 We review Cook s sentences for fundamental error, an error that is clear and egregious. State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 525, 527 (2002). Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be brought in a petition for postconviction relief under Rule 32 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id. ¶7 We have reviewed counsel s brief, Cook s pro se brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 299, 451 P.2d at 880. We find none. Our review of the record reveals that the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure; Cook represented himself at the resentencing hearing as he had requested; advisory counsel was present for resentencing and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. We decline to order additional briefing, and we affirm Cook s sentences. ¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to inform Cook of the status of his appeal and of his future unless, options. upon Defense review, counsel counsel has finds an no further issue obligations appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). Cook shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. CONCLUSION ¶9 For the forgoing reasons, we affirm Cook s sentences for sexual exploitation of a minor. /S/______________________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Judge CONCURRING: /S/___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge /S/________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge

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.