Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0222
05-13-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JEROD LANCE WADE, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Todd M. Allison Counsel for Appellee Legal Advocate's Office, Kingman By Jill L. Evans Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. CR2012-01226
The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Todd M. Allison
Counsel for Appellee
Legal Advocate's Office, Kingman
By Jill L. Evans
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. THUMMA, Judge:
¶1 A jury convicted Jerod Lance Wade (Wade) of taking the identity of another, a class 4 felony; unlawful flight from law enforcement, a class 5 felony and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. The superior court sentenced Wade to mitigated, but consecutive, prison terms, with appropriate presentence incarceration credit. On appeal, Wade claims insufficient evidence supported his taking the identify of another conviction, a lesser included offense of aggravated taking the identity of another, the charged offense. Because sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict, Wade's sentences and convictions are affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This court views the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolves all reasonable inferences against Wade. State v. Karr, 221 Ariz. 319, 320 ¶ 2, 212 P.3d 11, 12 (App. 2008).
¶2 A Lake Havasu police officer pursued Wade after witnessing him violating traffic laws while driving a truck. Initially, Wade failed to stop, even though the officer was in a marked car with lights and sirens activated. When Wade did stop, he got out of the truck and ran away.
¶3 After Wade was arrested, he refused to identify himself. Police searched him and found a significant amount of cash in his wallet; a CVS money gram; two California driver's licenses in J.F.'s name but with Wade's photo; social security cards for J.F. and for Wade; a Walmart Master Card money card for J.F.; a NASCAR Visa card for J.F.; a Florida identification card for T.E.; a Washington D.C. driver's license for K.H.; a Mesa State College student identification card for Wade; and a Colorado identification card for Wade. Police also seized a bag from Wade's waistband that contained a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue and a digital scale.
Initials are used to protect victims' privacy. State v. Maldonado, 206 Ariz. 339, 341 n.1 ¶ 2, 78 P.3d 1060, 1062 n.1 (App. 2003).
¶4 The police learned Wade had a nationwide extradition felony warrant from Colorado. The police also learned Wade had purchased a money gram using a J.F. identification card and signing as J.F. on a CVS document. A Walmart receipt in Wade's wallet and Walmart video surveillance showed Wade adding money to the Walmart card in J.F.'s name.
¶5 J.F. testified at trial that he had never met Wade; never had a California driver's license; never sent a money gram at CVS; never applied for the J.F. credit cards Wade was carrying; and never gave Wade permission to use his identify. J.F. also identified his social security card found on Wade that he had lost years earlier. The jury also heard expert testimony that the driver's licenses were fake.
¶6 Defense counsel moved for a motion of judgment of acquittal arguing, as relevant here, that the State failed to show Wade possessed the identity cards with the intent to use them for an unlawful purpose. The superior court denied the motion. The jury then convicted Wade and the superior court sentenced him to prison. This court has jurisdiction over Wade's timely appeal under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (2014).
Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
DISCUSSION
¶7 Wade's sole argument on appeal is that the State did not present sufficient evidence that he had an intent to use the identity of another to "cause loss" or for "any unlawful purpose." This court looks for "substantial evidence from the entire record from which a rational trier of fact could have found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Routhier, 137 Ariz. 90, 99, 669 P.2d 68, 77 (1983). "Substantial evidence is evidence that 'reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357 ¶ 22, 174 P.3d 265, 269 (2007) (citation omitted). If "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt," substantial evidence supports the conviction. Id. at 357 ¶ 22, 174 P.3d at 269 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
¶8 As applicable here, under A.R.S. § 13-2008(A),
A person commits [the crime of] taking identity of another person . . . if the person knowingly takes, purchases, manufacturers, records, possesses or uses any personal identifying information . . . without the consent of that other person or entity, with the intent to obtain or use the other person's . . . identity for any unlawful purpose or to cause loss to a person . . . whether or not the person . . . actually suffers any economic loss as a result of the offense.(Emphasis added). The jury heard evidence that Wade possessed a driver's license with J.F.'s personal information; used that license to obtain various other cards in J.F.'s name; had an outstanding arrest warrant and did not have consent from J.F to use J.F.'s identifying information. On this record, the jury properly could have concluded, for example, that Wade acted with the intent to use the identity of another for the unlawful purpose of evading an outstanding arrest warrant in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2507, and -2907.01. The fact that no economic loss was actually suffered by any person as a result of the offense is immaterial. A.R.S. § 13-2008(A).
CONCLUSION
¶9 Finding no error, Wade's convictions and sentences are affirmed.