State v. King, 1 CA-CR 16-0225

In 2012 King and accomplices robbed a victim at gunpoint; police pursued them to a condominium where King and an accomplice entered, held another victim at gunpoint, and attempted to take money. King was arrested while fleeing.
After plea negotiations and a Donald advisement, King rejected the State’s offer and was tried in 2014; delay in trial was found justified by extraordinary circumstances.
A jury convicted King on seven counts: armed robbery, two kidnappings, two aggravated assaults, first-degree burglary, and attempted armed robbery; jurors found multiple aggravating circumstances and that the offenses were dangerous felonies.
The superior court determined King competent after mental-health evaluations; a voluntariness hearing request was replaced by a settlement conference at defense counsel’s agreement.
Sentences ranged from 7.5 to 12.5 years, ordered to run concurrently, with 726 days’ presentence credit; King appealed and counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the record for fundamental error and affirmed convictions and sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Delay in bringing case to trial	State: continuance justified by extraordinary circumstances	King: delay improper (implied)	Court: continuance proper under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.5(b)
Competency and voluntariness procedures	State: proper evaluations and procedures followed	King: requested voluntariness hearing; later agreed to settlement conference	Court: competency found; defendant waived voluntariness hearing by agreement
Sufficiency of evidence (dangerous weapon/unloaded gun)	State: evidence (including unloaded gun) supported armed robbery	King: (implied) challenged elements or sufficiency	Court: unloaded gun qualifies as dangerous weapon; evidence sufficient for convictions
Aggravating circumstance (receipt of pecuniary value)	State: aggravators found separately from substantive elements	King: argued overlap between attempted armed robbery and pecuniary-value aggravator	Court: elements are distinct; jury lawfully considered aggravator

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (court-appointed counsel may file a brief raising frivolous issues and request appellate review)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (procedures following Anders filings in Arizona)
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999) (standards for counsel’s search for non-frivolous issues on appeal)
State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000) (advisement required before rejecting plea offers)
State v. Alvarado, 121 Ariz. 485 (1979) (defendant must move for voluntariness hearing)
State v. Cordova, 198 Ariz. 242 (App. 1999) (an unloaded gun may be a dangerous weapon for armed robbery)
State v. Greenway, 170 Ariz. 155 (1991) (distinction between substantive offense elements and aggravating circumstances)
State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327 (2005) (further discussion on separating elements and aggravators)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s limited post-Anders obligations to client)