STATE OF ARIZONA v. MICHAEL EDWARD FINCK (pdf)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL EDWARD FINCK, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2021-0090 Filed October 27, 2022 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20110480001 The Honorable Renee T. Bennett, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Robert A. Kerry, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. FINCK Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Cattani concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After obtaining relief in a federal habeas proceeding, Michael Finck was resentenced for one count of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record “but found no tenable issue” to raise on appeal and asking this court to review the record for error. Finck has filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Finck was convicted in 2013 of three counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor and sentenced to concurrent fourteen-year prison terms. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Finck, No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0039 (Ariz. App. Sept. 2, 2014) (mem. decision). Finck then sought and was denied post-conviction relief. State v. Finck, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0299-PR (Ariz. App. Nov. 23, 2016) (mem. decision). A federal district court later granted a writ of habeas corpus based on a purported failure by the trial court to adequately advise Finck— who represented himself at trial—pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), after the state had added two counts in a supervening indictment. Finck v. Shinn, No. CV 18-282-TUC-FRZ, 2020 WL 4365839 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2020). The district court directed that Finck be retried on the three counts or, in the alternative, that the state must move to dismiss the two later counts and Finck would be resentenced on the original count. Id. ¶3 The trial court granted the state’s subsequent motion to dismiss the two counts and to resentence Finck on the remaining count. The court then imposed an eight-year prison term. This appeal followed. ¶4 The sentence is within the statutory limit and was lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(J), 13-708(D), 13-3102(A)(4), (M). We have reviewed the arguments Finck identified in his supplemental brief and have 2 STATE v. FINCK Decision of the Court concluded none are arguable issues requiring further briefing.1 See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012). ¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Finck identified in his supplemental brief, and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Finck’s sentence. 1 Finck’s claim regarding a jury instruction relates to his trial and cannot be raised in this appeal from his resentencing. 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.
