State v. Dixon ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
    v.
    TOMMY LEE DIXON, JR., Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 23-0135
    FILED 12-21-2023
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
    No. S8015CR202200272
    The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Alice Jones
    Counsel for Appellee
    Janelle A. McEachern, Chandler
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. DIXON
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
    T H U M M A, Judge:
    ¶1            This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967)
    and State v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
     (1969). Counsel for defendant Tommy Lee
    Dixon, Jr., has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, she
    has found no arguable question of law and asks the court to conduct an
    Anders review of the record. Dixon was given the opportunity to file a
    supplemental brief pro se but has not done so. This court has reviewed the
    record and has found no reversible error. Thus, Dixon’s convictions and
    resulting sentences are affirmed.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            Dixon was indicted for various felony offenses committed in
    December 2021 in Kingman, Arizona. A jury later found Dixon guilty of
    first-degree burglary, a Class 2 felony (Count 1); disorderly conduct, a Class
    6 felony (Count 2); discharging a firearm at a residence, a Class 2 felony
    (Count 3); and misconduct involving weapons, a Class 4 felony (Count 4).
    As to counts one, two and three, the jury also found the State had proven
    the alleged aggravators of physical, emotional and financial harm to the
    victim.
    ¶3            At a March 2023 sentencing, the court considered Dixon’s
    mental health and medical history as a mitigating factor. Given his prior
    criminal history, Dixon was sentenced as a Category 3 non-dangerous but
    repetitive offender to prison terms of 28 years for Count 1; 4.5 years for
    Count 2; 28 years for Count 3; and 8 years for Count 4. The sentences for
    Counts 1 and 3 are consecutive to each other and the sentences for Counts
    2 and 4 are concurrent to Count 1. This court has jurisdiction over Dixon’s
    timely appeal under Arizona Revised Statute §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031
    and -4033(A)(1).
    DISCUSSION
    ¶4            The record shows that Dixon was represented by counsel at
    all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical
    2
    STATE v. DIXON
    Decision of the Court
    stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The
    prison sentences imposed were within statutory limits, and the lack of
    presentence incarceration credit was correct. And in all other respects, from
    the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with
    the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶5            This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
    searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon,
    204 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 
    196 Ariz. 530
    , 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999).
    Accordingly, Dixon’s conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.
    ¶6             Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
    inform Dixon of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense
    counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies
    an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
    petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    , 584-85 (1984). Dixon
    has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a
    pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 23-0135

Filed Date: 12/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2023