Opinion
2 CA-CR 2022-0116
05-19-2023
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Otis L. Griffin, Appellant.
Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20182023001 The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Judge Sklar authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge O'Neil concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
SKLAR, JUDGE
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Otis Griffin was convicted of fraudulent schemes and artifices. The trial court found Griffin had one historical prior felony conviction and sentenced him, as a category two repetitive offender, to six years' imprisonment. Griffin appealed, and the state cross-appealed. This court affirmed Griffin's conviction but remanded the matter for resentencing, concluding that he should have been sentenced as a category three repetitive offender because the trial court had incorrectly failed to consider his 2008 conviction as an additional historical prior felony conviction. State v. Griffin, 250 Ariz. 651, ¶¶ 29-30 (App. 2021). On remand, the trial court sentenced Griffin to 10.5 years' imprisonment.
¶2 In this appeal from the sentence imposed on remand, 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 she has reviewed the record and has found "[n]o arguable question of law." Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, counsel has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record," and has asked this court to search the record for reversible error.
¶3 Griffin has filed a supplemental brief, in which he challenges the underlying conviction and asserts that his last appeal was "wrongly decided." However, these issues are not currently before us. See State v. Hartford, 145 Ariz. 403, 405 (App. 1985) (where underlying conviction previously affirmed on appeal, issues defendant can raise on appeal from remand for resentencing limited to resentencing). Griffin also seems to suggest that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence him and that his sentence is "illegal and void." But these are not arguable issues. See Griffin, 250 Ariz. 651, ¶¶ 21-29. The sentence imposed is within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-2310(A).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Griffin identified in his supplemental brief, and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Griffin's sentence.