STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOHN GRAYLING AGEE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOHN GRAYLING AGEE, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0076 Filed October 3, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20141082001 The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Dean Brault, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. AGEE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Kelly1 concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, John Agee was convicted of first-degree murder and misdemeanor theft. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term of natural life for murder and time served for theft. ¶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 she has 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, she has 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. Agee has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), we find it sufficient here. In November 2013, after Agee and another person struck the victim with a machete while interrogating him, Agee smashed the victim’s head with a rock, killing him; Agee then took items belonging to the victim.2 See A.R.S. 1 The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, 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. 2The jury found the murder was both premeditated and felony murder based on kidnapping or attempted kidnapping. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1105(A)(1), (2), 13-1304(A). 2 STATE v. AGEE Decision of the Court §§ 13-1105(A), 13-1802(A), (G). Agee’s sentences are within the statutory range and were properly imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-752(A), 13-707(A)(1), 13-1105(D), 13-1802(G). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Agee’s convictions and 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.