STATE v . COLBERT
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. CEDRIC CARL COLBERT, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 3/12/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0175 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-005625-001 DT The Honorable Samuel A. Thumma, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Nicole T. Farnum, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 1 297, 451 P.2d (defendant) has 878 (1969). advised us Counsel that, for after Cedric Carl searching Colbert the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 This crime arose from a conflict between an escort (Pauline) and her former manager (victim). Pauline enlisted the help of defendant and two other men to assault victim and rob him. the Pauline accompanied victim to his home where defendant and two other men displayed firearms Defendant held victim at gunpoint. and forced entry. When victim attempted to escape, defendant intercepted victim, kicked him, and struck him repeatedly with a firearm. victim successfully The intruders escaped. Defendant took $2250 was arrested before after Pauline identified him as a participant in the home invasion. ¶3 Defendant was charged with five counts: one count each of first degree burglary, a class 2 dangerous felony; armed robbery, a class 2 dangerous felony; aggravated assault, a class 3 dangerous felony; kidnapping, a class 2 dangerous felony; and misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony. At trial defendant testified that he did not participate, asserting that he waited outside after having a change of heart. 2 However, defendant admitted post-arrest to acting as a lookout and both victim and Pauline identified defendant as an active participant. ¶4 Defendant was convicted on all counts after a jury trial. each The jury further found four aggravating circumstances in of the infliction four of accomplice; serious the consideration felonies: physical expectation for the judge found an infliction injury; or receipt offense; financial harm to the victim. the the and the of or threatened presence of an gain in emotional or pecuniary physical, Based on defendant s conviction, automatic probation defendant was a prohibited possessor. violation because Defendant was sentenced to concurrent aggravated terms of 14 years on counts one, two, and four; a concurrent aggravated term of 10 years on count three; and a concurrent presumptive term of 2.5 years on count five. served The judge ordered that these concurrent sentences be consecutive probation violation, restitution. ¶5 to a and presumptive that term defendant of pay 1 year victim for the $2250 in Defendant appealed. We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, defendant 3 was adequately represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶6 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge 4
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.
