Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 20-0234
01-26-2021
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RACHEL JEANINE GEHLEN, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale By Stephen L. Duncan 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Yavapai County
No. P1300CR201600457
The Honorable John David Napper, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Linley Wilson
Counsel for Appellee
Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale
By Stephen L. Duncan
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.
HOWE, Judge:
¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Rachel Gehlen has advised this Court that he has found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Gehlen was convicted of second-degree escape, a class 5 felony; disorderly conduct, a class 6 felony; three misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct; and three misdemeanor counts of assault. She was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; she has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Gehlen's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Gehlen. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). In April 2016, Gehlen was charging her phone inside a grocery store. The store manager, A.B., told Gehlen that she needed to leave because the store's policy prohibited customers from using the store's electricity. Gehlen then became agitated and raised her voice but started to pack up to leave. A.B. started walking to another area of the store when he was confronted by Gehlen who had taken her phone out and took pictures and video recordings of A.B.—which was also against company policy—while yelling at him that he could not tell her to leave.
¶3 A.B. called over L.M., the assistant store manager, to help him. A.B. and L.M. then started to escort Gehlen back to the front of the store while she still had her phone out taking pictures and recording. When L.M. tried to move the camera out of her face, Gehlen sprayed her in the face with pepper spray. Gehlen also pepper sprayed A.B. and two other store employees who had responded to the situation. One customer was pepper sprayed and several customers were affected by the pepper spray, prompting one customer to call the police.
¶4 Gehlen then started to leave the store. When another store employee, R.H. started following her, she pulled out a knife and told R.H. that if R.H. came any closer, she would cut her. The police pulled up and R.H. warned them that Gehlen had a knife. The police removed the knife from Gehlen after she refused to drop it. Gehlen was arrested and taken to jail for processing. When they arrived at the jail, Gehlen, who had managed to slip out of her handcuffs, fought with one of the police officers when he tried to get her back in the handcuffs. Gehlen was eventually placed back in handcuffs and was charged with second degree escape, felony disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, threatening or intimidating, three misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct, and four misdemeanor counts of assault.
¶5 The trial was postponed for several months because Gehlen was found to be incompetent to stand trial. After the court found her competency was restored, the case proceeded to trial.
¶6 After a jury trial, Gehlen was found guilty of second-degree escape and disorderly conduct but was found not guilty of resisting arrest. The jury further found that the disorderly conduct offense was not a dangerous offense. Gehlen was given a suspended sentence and placed on six-month's unsupervised probation for those convictions. The trial court also found Gehlen guilty of the misdemeanor disorderly conduct and assault offenses but found her not guilty of threatening or intimidating and not guilty of one assault offense. The court imposed various jail sentences for each of the misdemeanor convictions and she was given credit for time served for each conviction. Gehlen timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶7 We review Gehlen's convictions and sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for Gehlen has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law.
¶8 We have read and considered counsel's brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Gehlen was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing and affirm Gehlen's convictions and sentences.
¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Gehlen of the status of the appeal and of her future options. Counsel has no
further obligations unless, upon review, 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). Gehlen shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.