State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen
235 Ariz. 72
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Allen used a false signature on a warning, signing Aubrey Swanson to avoid formal recognition at a gas station.
- About two weeks later, Allen used his real name; the officer later learned of the discrepancy and Allen confessed to using a false name to avoid an outstanding warrant.
- Allen was charged with forgery, taking the identity of another, and criminal trespass; the identity charge was dismissed at trial.
- At trial, Allen was convicted of forgery and criminal trespass; the trial court sentenced forgery to a presumptive 10-year term and trespass time served.
- During sentencing, Allen walked out of the courtroom; the court found voluntary absence and sentenced in absentia, which later became the subject of appeal.
- The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, but held that sentencing in absentia was error requiring remand for resentencing; the rest of the judgment remained intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of forgery to sustain the conviction? | State; evidence showed intent to defraud. | Allen; no valid intent to defraud since no actual warrant evidence. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported forgery. |
| Was sentencing in absentia constitutional or prejudicial? | State; waiver of presence may be implied by conduct. | Allen; no extraordinary circumstance justifying absentia. | Error to sentence in absentia; remand for resentencing required; not necessarily prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bedoni v. State, 161 Ariz. 480 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (intent to defraud shown by use of false signature on a warning)
- State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (Ariz. 2011) (sufficiency of evidence review de novo; substantial evidence standard)
- State v. Thompson, 194 Ariz. 295 (Ariz. 2000) (intent to defraud based on objective to cause a result)
- State v. Forte, 222 Ariz. 389 (Ariz. 2009) (describes requirements for a reasonable and rational sentencing)
- Fettis v. State, 136 Ariz. 58 (Ariz. 1983) (sentencing in absentia; extraordinary circumstances limitation)
- State v. Hensley, 160 Ariz. 557 (Ariz. 1989) (sentencing in absentia limits; requirement of prejudice)