Statev.White

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWOJul 10, 2019
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0330 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2019)

No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0330

07-10-2019

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DENNIS LASHAUN WHITE, Appellant.

COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant


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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20181035001
The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender
By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred. BREARCLIFFE, Judge:

¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Dennis White was convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. The trial court found he had two or more historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him, as a category three repetitive offender, to a "substantially mitigated," 8.5 year prison term for the aggravated assault and time considered served for the shoplifting.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 703(J), a class three felony, committed by a category three repetitive offender, is punishable by a range of sentences that includes a "minimum" term of ten years and a "mitigated" term of 7.5 years. --------

¶2 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). Consistent with Clark, she has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record," 196 Ariz. 530, 537, and states she is "unable to find any arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal." She asks this court to search the record for error. White has not filed a supplemental brief.

¶3 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining White's convictions, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1805(A)(1). A convenience store cashier saw White remove a snack item from a display and place it in his pocket before approaching the store exit without paying for it. The cashier called out to White that he had to pay for the item, but White did not stop. The cashier had followed White out of the store and grabbed his jacket to "spin him around," when White swung at him. The cashier ducked and "clotheslined" White across "the shoulder/chest area," knocking him to the ground and holding him there, pressing his knee into White's back while attempting to recover the merchandise. White, having pulled out a knife, swung his arm back toward the cashier and stabbed him twice in the leg.

¶4 In addition, we conclude the sentences imposed by the trial court were within the statutory range authorized, see A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J), and were properly imposed.

¶5 In our examination of the record, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm White's convictions and sentences.