STATE OF ARIZONA v. KENNETH CARL BEATTY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. KENNETH CARL BEATTY, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0391 Filed August 26, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Cochise County No. CR201400381 The Honorable John F. Kelliher Jr., Judge AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED COUNSEL Daniel J. DeRienzo, Prescott Valley Counsel for Appellant STATE v. BEATTY Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Kenneth Beatty was convicted of second-degree trafficking in stolen property, a lesserincluded offense of first-degree trafficking in stolen property. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Beatty on intensive probation for three years.1 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing he has reviewed the entire record and found no “error or arguable questions of law” to raise on appeal, and asking that we search the record for reversible error. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has also provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record.” Beatty has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in September 2012, the victim returned home to find his “Ryobi . . . and Craftsman tool set[s]” missing from the tool shed in his carport. “A day or two later,” the victim saw tools matching the description of the ones stolen from him for sale on a classified advertisement website; he notified the police. In October 2012, an undercover 1After the trial court granted Beatty’s motion to sever, he pled guilty to possession of a narcotic drug, for which the court imposed a three-year term of intensive probation to be served concurrently with the term of probation imposed in the matter before us on appeal. 2 STATE v. BEATTY Decision of the Court police officer purchased tools from Beatty, which the victim later identified as the ones stolen from his carport. We conclude substantial evidence supported Beatty’s conviction, see A.R.S. §§ 132307(A), 13-2301(B)(2), (3), 13-105(10)(c), and the probation imposed is an authorized disposition, see A.R.S. §§ 13-902(A)(2); 13-2307(C). ¶3 However, in our review of the record pursuant to Anders, we noticed that the sentencing minute entry mistakenly lists the wrong date for the offense, which should be on or about October 4, 2012, rather than September 23, 2012. Because it is clear from the record, including the trial court’s order granting the state’s uncontested motion to modify the indictment and the officer’s testimony at trial that this offense occurred on or about October 4, 2012, the sentencing minute entry shall be corrected accordingly. See State v. Vandever, 211 Ariz. 206, ¶ 16, 119 P.3d 473, 477 (App. 2005) (appellate court must correct inadvertent error in sentencing minute entry); see also State v. Lopez, 230 Ariz. 15, n.2, 279 P.3d 640, 643 n.2 (App. 2012) (“When we can ascertain the trial court’s intent from the record, we need not remand for clarification.”). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and considered all potential issues, including the ones to which counsel has drawn our attention but characterized as lacking merit. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search for fundamental error); State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 299, 451 P.2d 878, 880 (1969) (counsel may refer in Anders brief “to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal”), quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Having found no fundamental, reversible error, we affirm Beatty’s conviction and disposition but correct the sentencing order consistent with this decision. 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.
