State v. Douglas, 103119 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CR 18-0410
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CR 18-0410|
|Opinion Judge:||Swann, Chief Judge.|
|Party Name:||STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JEFFREY SCOTT DOUGLAS, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joshua C. Smith Counsel for Appellee. The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Alison Stavris Counsel for Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.|
|Case Date:||October 31, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2017-137433-001 The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joshua C. Smith Counsel for Appellee.
The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Alison Stavris Counsel for Appellant.
Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
Swann, Chief Judge.
¶1 Jeffrey Scott Douglas contends that the superior court erred by allowing the late filing of an allegation that he was on probation at the time of the offense for which he was tried. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 The state charged Douglas with theft of a means of transportation. Before trial, the state alleged historical prior felony convictions, multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion, and other prior felony convictions. On the morning of the first day of trial, before jury selection, the state added an allegation that Douglas was on probation when he committed the charged offense. The state admitted that the new allegation was untimely. Over Douglas's objection, the superior court allowed the allegation on the ground that Douglas had prior notice of the state's intent to assert it.
¶3 The jury found Douglas guilty of the lesser-included offense of unlawful use of means of transportation. Douglas admitted at trial to two historical prior felonies, and admitted at sentencing to having committed the trial offense while on probation. The court sentenced him as a category three repetitive offender to a presumptive five-year prison term. Douglas appeals.
¶4 Douglas contends that the superior court erred by allowing the state to amend the charging document with the untimely probation-status allegation.
¶5 "[T]he defendant must receive notice before...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP