STATE OF ARIZONA v. RAY ANTHONY TAYLOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAY ANTHONY TAYLOR, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0114 Filed December 21, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20114044001 The Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL The Hopkins Law Office, Tucson By Cedric Martin Hopkins Counsel for Appellant STATE v. TAYLOR Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Miller concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Ray Taylor was convicted of weapons misconduct, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor and unlawful discharge of a firearm. Taylor admitted he had two historical prior convictions and had been on probation at the time of the offenses. The trial court sentenced him to a ten-year prison term for weapons misconduct and a 3.75-year prison term for unlawful discharge. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Taylor, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0396 (memorandum decision filed Jul. 16, 2013). The trial court granted in part his later petition for post-conviction relief, determining he had not waived his right to a jury trial to determine his release status at the time of the offenses because that fact was material to his sentence under A.R.S. § 13-708(C).1 Following the jury’s finding that he had been on supervised release at the time of his offenses, the court imposed the same 10-year and 3.75-year prison terms. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 1The trial court’s grant of relief was based on Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). The court denied Taylor’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and we denied relief in Taylor’s subsequent petition for review of that denial. State v. Taylor, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0163-PR (memorandum decision filed Sep. 29, 2015). 2 STATE v. TAYLOR Decision of the Court 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record” and asks this court to search the record for error. Taylor has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict here. When he committed weapons misconduct and illegal discharge of a firearm in November 2011, Taylor was on probation for a previous felony offense. And Taylor’s sentences are within the statutory limits and were imposed properly. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J); 13-708(C), 13-3102(M), 13-3107(A). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Taylor’s sentences. 3
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.
