Opinion
2 CA-CR 2011-0101
12-29-2011
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee v. NATHAN BANARD HORTON, Appellant
Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Scott A. Martin Tucson Attorneys for Appellant
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20100887001
Honorable José Robles, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Scott A. Martin
Tucson
Attorneys for Appellant
ESPINOSA, Judge.
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Nathan Horton was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault, all dangerous nature offenses. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1904, 13-1903, 13-1204. The trial court sentenced Horton to concurrent, partially mitigated and presumptive prison sentences, the longest of which was eight years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the entire record and has found no "tenable issue" to raise on appeal. He asks this court to search the record for "potential error." Horton has not filed a supplemental brief.
Although the sentencing minute entry designates the offenses as non-dangerous, it is clear from the record, including the sentencing transcript, the actual sentences imposed, and the verdicts, as well as Horton's opening brief, that they were dangerous. However, in the absence of a cross-appeal by the state, we will not correct the sentencing order to Horton's detriment. See State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 281-82, 792 P.2d 741, 744-45 (1990).
¶2 The convictions arose from an incident in which Horton and three other individuals held the victim at gunpoint and removed 122 boxes of perfume and cologne from the victim's vehicle. Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). And, the sentences are authorized by law.
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Horton's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
______________________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING:
______________________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
______________________
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge