STATE OF ARIZONA v. CLYDE ROBERT HOLLINGSHEAD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CLYDE ROBERT HOLLINGSHEAD, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0308 Filed January 27, 2017 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR045621 The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART AS CORRECTED; VACATED IN PART COUNSEL Steven R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. HOLLINGSHEAD Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Miller concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Clyde Hollingshead was convicted of six counts of sexual assault of a minor under fifteen, two counts of sexual abuse, two counts of sexual abuse of a minor under fifteen, and one count of sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive prison terms, the longest being life imprisonment without the possibility of release until he had served thirty-five years. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Hollingshead, No. 2 CA-CR 95-0320 (Ariz. App. Sept. 30, 1996) (mem. decision). Hollingshead thereafter sought and was granted post-conviction relief, resulting in his being resentenced on three counts. Those sentences, on two counts of sexual abuse of a minor under fifteen and one count of sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen, are the subject of this appeal.1 ¶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), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no “arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal.” Counsel has asked 1The trial court, although citing the correct statute, incorrectly referred to Hollingshead’s conviction on count ten as a conviction for sexual assault of a child, but the conviction was for sexual conduct with a child. We therefore order the resentencing minute entry corrected to reflect that count ten was a conviction for sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen, a dangerous crime against children. 2 STATE v. HOLLINGSHEAD Decision of the Court us to search the record for fundamental error. Hollingshead has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 We have reviewed the record, and we conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13705(C), (F), (M), 13-1404, 13-1405. We note, however, although not raised by the parties, the sentencing minute entry provides that the “fines, fees, assessments and/or restitution are reduced to a criminal restitution order [CRO].” But as this court has previously determined, trial courts lack authority to issue a CRO pertaining to “fines, fees, [and] assessments” at sentencing, see State v. Cota, 234 Ariz. 180, ¶ 15, 319 P.3d 242, 246 (App. 2014); we therefore vacate that portion of the court’s order, so that the “CRO entered at sentencing exclusively applies to an award of restitution.” Id. ¶ 17. ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found no other such error. Accordingly, Hollingshead’s sentences are otherwise affirmed. 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.
