Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0253
05-29-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ROLLIN LEE JOHNSON, Appellant.
COUNSEL Michael Villarreal, Florence 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pinal County
No. S1100CR201701407
The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Michael Villarreal, Florence
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Rollin Johnson was convicted of disorderly conduct, assisting a criminal street gang, two counts of discharging a firearm at a non-residential structure, and twenty-six counts of aggravated assault, all dangerous. Ten counts of aggravated assault were dangerous crimes against children. The trial court sentenced him to enhanced, consecutive and concurrent prison terms totaling 192 years' imprisonment. 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 and has found no "arguable issues on appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for "fundamental or reversible error." Johnson has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1), (2), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1211(B), 13-2321(B), 13-2904(A)(6). The evidence presented at trial showed Johnson, who had tattoos and clothing consistent with gang affiliation and had been identified as a gang member, during a fight among gang members, fired a gun multiple times toward a crowd of children and young adults standing outside a youth recreation center, hitting the building and two people, and causing the crowd to scatter in fear. We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A), 13-705, 13-1204(E), 13-1211(B), 13-2321(D), 13-2904(B).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Johnson's convictions and sentences are affirmed.