Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0423
09-18-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. QUINTIN WINSTON, Appellant.
COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20165535001
The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender
By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eppich concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Quintin Winston was convicted of unlawful use of a means of transportation, as a lesser included offense of theft of a means of transportation, and was sentenced to a five-year prison term. Counsel has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. She asks this court to search the record for error. Winston has filed a supplemental brief raising numerous arguments.
The jury also found Winston guilty of third-degree burglary, but the trial court later granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal on that charge. --------
¶2 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 to support the verdict here, see A.R.S. § 13-1803(A)(1). On October 11, 2016, Winston—who was on work release for a federal criminal conviction—was seen driving a stolen vehicle, which he later abandoned, informing a detective (through his attorney) late the following day where the vehicle could be found. When he was contacted by that detective earlier that day, however, Winston denied having driven the vehicle and told the detective "he wasn't going to be a 'rat'" and "I don't get down like that." Sufficient evidence also supported the trial court's finding Winston had at least three historical prior convictions. The sentence imposed is within the statutory range. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-708(C), 13-1803(B).
¶3 In his supplemental brief, Winston argues, without citation to the record as required by Rule 31.10(a)(7)(A), Ariz. R. Crim. P., that: (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on unlawful use of a means of transportation as a lesser included offense of theft of a means of transportation pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5); (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by characterizing his driving while being followed by officers in unmarked vehicles as flight; (4) comments by a prospective juror "tainted" the panel; (5) testimony that he stayed in a "group home" was improper because it caused the jury to "conclude that [he] had legal trouble"; (6) a video showing him in a hotel room was unduly prejudicial; (7) the court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-2305(1); and (8) the state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Each of these issues was raised by counsel below and rejected by the court. Winston has cited no authority that persuades us the court erred in doing so, and we have found none.
¶4 We have examined the arguments Winston raised in his supplemental brief and conclude they do not warrant relief, and we have searched the record for reversible error and found none. Winston's conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.