Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0317
03-17-2020
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RONNIE EUGENE HOLLAND, Appellant.
COUNSEL Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson By Thomas Jacobs 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20174792001
The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson
By Thomas Jacobs
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Ronnie Holland was found guilty of two counts each of aggravated assault and discharge of a firearm within city limits, and one count each of discharge of a firearm at a residential structure, drive-by shooting, endangerment, fleeing from a law enforcement vehicle, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor, all committed while on probation. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is an aggravated, twenty-eight year sentence for drive-by shooting.
Holland's trial for weapons possession was bifurcated, but he was sentenced under the same cause number as his other offenses. --------
¶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), stating he has reviewed the record but found no "issue that is not frivolous" and asking this court to review the record for error. Holland has filed a supplemental brief claiming there had been an "unconstitutional potential for judicial bias," that the state violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose video and impeachment evidence, and that he was entitled to an instruction pursuant to State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 (1964), based on the loss of that video evidence.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1201(A), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1209(A), 13-1211(A), 13-3102(A)(4), 13-3107(A), 28-622.01. In October 2017, Holland fired several bullets into an apartment with two occupants and pointed a gun at one of them. About two hours later, Holland confronted another victim at a convenience store, pursued him in his truck, rammed the victim's vehicle repeatedly, and fired two shots at it; at least one bullet struck the vehicle, causing the victim's arm and leg to be injured by exploding glass. Shortly thereafter, Holland led police on a vehicle pursuit that ended with his arrest.
¶4 Sufficient evidence also supports the trial court's finding that Holland had numerous historical prior felony convictions and its finding of aggravating factors including Holland's probation status and felony history. His sentences are within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701(D)(11), (27), 13-703(C), (J), 13-1201(B), 13-1204(E), 13-1209(D), 13-1211(A), 13-3102(M), 13-3107(A), 28-622.01. We have reviewed the issues Holland identifies in his supplemental brief and have determined they are not arguable issues requiring further briefing. 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 Holland identified in his supplemental brief, and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Holland's convictions and sentences.