STATE OF ARIZONA v. JEROLD WOLFORD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JEROLD WOLFORD, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0365 Filed June 29, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20152874002 The Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. WOLFORD Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Howard1 concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Jerold Wolford was convicted of theft of property with a value greater than $25,000 and second-degree trafficking in stolen property. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and imposed concurrent, five-year terms of probation for each offense. ¶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 reviewed the record but found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record” and asked this court to search the record for error. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports them here. In June and July 2015, Wolford possessed property with a value of at least $25,000 that had been stolen from the victims’ home, including coins, vases, watches, and jewelry; Wolford had pawned some items and other stolen property was found in his vehicle. See A.R.S. §§ 131802(A)(1), (5), (G), 13-2307(A). And we find no error in the trial court’s imposition of probation. See A.R.S. §§ 13-603(B), 13-901. 1The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. 2 STATE v. WOLFORD Decision of the Court ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (stating Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, Wolford’s convictions and terms of probation are 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.