STATE OF ARIZONA v. JEFFREY LYNN SEXTON

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 FILED BY CLERK NOV 29 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JEFFREY LYNN SEXTON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0104 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20100851001 Honorable James A. Soto, Judge AFFIRMED Robert J. Hirsh, Pima County Public Defender By Robert J. McWhirter Tucson Attorneys for Appellant E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Jeffrey Sexton was convicted of second-degree burglary, child molestation, and sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen. The trial court imposed presumptive, consecutive sentences, the longest of which was a term of life in prison with the possibility of parole after thirty-five years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no arguably meritorious issue for appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Sexton has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed Sexton had entered the bedroom of a ten-year old boy through a window, fondled his genitals, and digitally penetrated his anus. ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Sexton s convictions and sentences. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 2

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.