State v. Kyle

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. SHAWN PATRICK KYLE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 20-0531 FILED 6-23-2022 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR201680108 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale By Stephen L. Duncan Counsel for Appellant Shawn Patrick Kyle, Camp Verde Appellant STATE v. KYLE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass joined. P A T O N, Judge: ¶1 In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), Shawn Patrick Kyle appeals his conviction for resisting arrest. Kyle’s counsel searched the record and found no arguable, non-frivolous question of law. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Kyle filed a supplemental brief. We view the record in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Kyle. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). After reviewing the record, we find no error and reject the arguments Kyle raised in his supplemental brief. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In February 2016, a joint taskforce of Cottonwood police officers, Partners Against Narcotic Trafficking (PANT) and Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement (GIITEM) executed an arrest warrant on Kyle. Taskforce officers followed Kyle into a parking lot and surrounded his vehicle. Kyle locked himself in the car, ignoring law enforcement’s orders to exit, and picked up an axe. Officers tried unsuccessfully to draw Kyle out of the car by tasing him three times and sending in a K-9 dog, which Kyle struck with the axe. ¶3 When Kyle eventually exited the vehicle, he ignored commands from law enforcement, and “continued to struggle, trying to put his hands underneath him and not giving officers control of his arms or hands to allow him to be handcuffed.” Officers eventually arrested and searched Kyle and found baggies or bindles of methamphetamine in his pocket. ¶4 The grand jury indicted Kyle on four counts of aggravated assault (counts 1-4), one count of resisting arrest (count 5), one count of possession of a dangerous drug (count 6-methamphetamine), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia (count 7-methamphetamine). 2 STATE v. KYLE Decision of the Court ¶5 After the State rested, the court dismissed counts 2 and 3 on Kyle’s motion for judgment of acquittal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1). The jury acquitted Kyle on counts 1, 4, 6, and 7, and convicted him of count 5 (resisting arrest). ¶6 The jury found two aggravators: (1) use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, and (2) Kyle committed the …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals