Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 17-0712
04-30-2019
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ROBERT LAWSON CARNOCHAN, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Mohave County Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Jill L. Evans Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR201600530
The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tem
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee Mohave County Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Jill L. Evans
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined. WEINZWEIG, Judge:
¶1 Robert Lawson Carnochan appeals his convictions and sentences for five counts of forgery and two counts of taking the identity of another, all class 4 felonies. Carnochan's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Carnochan was given the chance to file a supplemental brief but did not. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Carnochan's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Carnochan is a Canadian citizen who illegally entered the United States in 1993. He moved to Kingman, where he assumed the identifies of J.W. and C.D. He acquired two Arizona driver's licenses for J.W. in May 2000 and September 2012, and Arizona driver's licenses for C.D. in July 2002 and December 2003. He obtained all four licenses at the Kingman/Lake Havasu Department of Motor Vehicles office. J.W. and C.D. never lived in Arizona or applied for Arizona driver's licenses. Carnochan never received permission from C.D. or J.W. to use their identities.
¶3 Carnochan used the false identities of J.W. and C.D. on various occasions. In April 2008, Carnochan was stopped by a sheriff's deputy in Mohave County for a traffic violation. He identified himself as C.D. and presented the Arizona license for C.D., which had Carnochan's picture. The deputy issued a citation and wrote a departmental report. Carnochan later used the Arizona license for J.W. to rent a private mailbox in March 2014, and then to purchase a vehicle in January 2016.
¶4 The Mohave County Sheriff's Department started a criminal investigation into Carnochan for identify theft. A deputy stopped Carnochan's vehicle in April 2016 in connection with the investigation. Carnochan identified himself as J.W. and provided an Arizona license for J.W. Carnochan also had a social security card issued to J.W. and a check-cashing card. Carnochan was arrested and eventually revealed his true identity.
Law enforcement continued to investigate and located more documents in which Carnochan assumed the identities of J.W. and C.D., including correspondence with the Social Security Administration and birth certificates.
¶5 Carnochan was charged with five counts of forgery and two counts taking the identity of another (class 4 felonies). See A.R.S. §§ 13-2002(A), (C), -2008(A), (E). The court held a four-day jury trial. Carnochan was represented by counsel but did not testify. The court admitted various exhibits, including the photos of Carnochan used in the false Arizona driver's licenses. The jury heard testimony from several witnesses, including C.D., an Arizona Department of Transportation detective, an MVD official from Kingman/Lake Havasu and three Mohave County Sheriff's Department deputies. The jury found Carnochan guilty on all seven counts.
¶6 An aggravation hearing ensued, where a Department of Homeland Security special agent testified about Carnochan's immigration history and status. The jury found the aggravating factor that Carnochan had improperly entered the United States under A.R.S. § 13-701(21). The court also found two historical felony convictions in the State of Washington.
¶7 In all, Carnochan was sentenced to 24 years in prison, including two concurrent six-year prison terms for two counts of forgery (Counts 1 and 4); two concurrent six-year prison terms for two counts of forgery (Counts 2 and 3); one six-year prison term for one count of taking the identity of another (Count 5); and two concurrent six-year prison terms for one count of forgery and one count of taking the identity of another (Counts 6 and 7). Carnochan timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 9, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶8 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.
¶9 Carnochan was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Carnochan all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Carnochan's sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
CONCLUSION
¶10 Carnochan's convictions and sentences are affirmed. Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Carnochan's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Carnochan of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Carnochan has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.