STATE v. BAUM

 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. ROBERT TREG BAUM, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 7/9/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0417 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-006459-001 The Honorable Brian Kaiser, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorney for Appellee Phoenix James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry Reid, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix C A T T A N I, Judge ¶1 Robert Treg Baum appeals his conviction of one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a Class 5 felony, and brief in the resulting accordance with sentence. Anders Baum s v. counsel California, 386 filed U.S. a 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Baum was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel reversible error. asks this court to search the record for See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Baum s conviction and sentence. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 Early one morning in May 2010, Baum drove his motorcycle at a high rate of speed in the same direction as an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer driving a marked car. When Baum s motorcycle was parallel to the officer s car, Baum slammed on his brakes and slowed to the officer s speed. The officer pulled registration check. directly behind Baum to run a vehicle As the officer turned on his patrol lights 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Baum. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). 2 to initiate a traffic stop for an unreadable license plate, Baum sped off. ¶3 The officer called dispatch for assistance. After Baum second officer, passed driving a a second marked officer s patrol car location, with lights the and siren engaged, pursued Baum and reached a maximum speed of 131 miles per hour. Before Baum reached a third officer s position, the third officer had pulled out in his marked police car with flashing lights and an activated siren. As Baum passed, Baum looked back over his shoulder toward the officer, who clocked Baum s speed at 130 miles per hour. During the pursuit, a speed enforcement camera photographed Baum looking in his left side mirror back at traffic. quick lane change, The pursuit ended after Baum made a exited the highway, and crashed his motorcycle. ¶4 A grand jury returned an indictment charging Baum with one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a Class 5 felony, along with three drug related charges. During his three-day trial, Baum admitted that he was speeding, but testified that he experienced tunnel vision due to his high rate of speed and did lights, or sirens. not see or hear police vehicles, flashing The jury found him guilty of unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, but not guilty of the other three charges. The superior court imposed two years probation. 3 suspended sentence and ¶5 Baum timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033. 2 DISCUSSION ¶6 We have considered counsel s brief and reviewed the entire record for reversible error. 451 P.2d at 881. ¶7 See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, We find none. Baum was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. the superior court afforded Baum The record reflects that all his rights under the constitution and our statutes, and that the proceedings were conducted in Procedure. accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury s guilty verdict. Baum s sentence falls within the range prescribed by law. CONCLUSION ¶8 filing We affirm Baum s conviction and sentence. of pertaining after this to decision, Baum s informing Baum defense representation of the outcome 2 counsel s in of this this After the obligations appeal appeal will end and his Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute s current version. 4 future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Baum shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /S/ KENT E. CATTANI, Judge CONCURRING: /S/ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge /S/ LARRY F. WINTHROP, Judge 5

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.