State v. Sherod
1 CA-CR 14-0408
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Police served a search warrant on an apartment where Paul Sherod lived; a SWAT team cleared the residence and a detective waited outside.
- Officers found a loaded .38 revolver under bedsheets on a second-floor bedroom bed; no photographs were taken of the gun in situ.
- Forensic testing showed the revolver was operable; no fingerprint or DNA testing was done because Sherod initially admitted ownership.
- Sherod told police he received the gun from an unidentified man named "Russell," and at trial claimed Russell owned it but acknowledged the gun was in his apartment.
- Sherod’s Arizona ID and clothing were found in the bedroom with the gun; he had stipulated to being a prohibited possessor and was convicted of misconduct involving weapons and sentenced to seven years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove knowing possession | State: Evidence (gun in apartment, ID/clothes in room, Sherod’s prior admission, operable loaded gun, stipulation as prohibited possessor) supports conviction | Sherod: Lack of physical forensic linkage (no photos, no fingerprints/DNA) and alternate possessor (Russell) undermines knowing possession | Affirmed: Evidence was sufficient; reasonable inferences support knowing possession and appellate court will not speculate that further tests would change verdict |
| Alleged mishandling / incomplete investigation (no photos or forensic tests) | Sherod: Failure to photograph gun and absence of fingerprint/DNA testing deprived him of proof of innocence | State: Investigative choices do not negate the other probative evidence; Sherod failed to show a reasonable likelihood further testing would alter outcome | Rejected: Lack of testing/photographs did not create reversible error or reasonable probability of a different verdict |
| Uncalled/untested third‑party witness (Russell or another apartment resident) | Sherod: Counsel should have interviewed/presented alleged other occupant(s) who might show Russell’s possession | Sherod: (substantive claim) but not preserved as ineffective assistance on direct appeal | Not addressed on merits: Ineffective-assistance claims must be pursued in Rule 32 proceedings; court will not decide on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel‑appointed appellate brief raising no arguable issues)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2005) (definition and standard for fundamental error)
- State v. Escalante‑Orozco, 241 Ariz. 254 (Ariz. 2017) (appellate refusal to speculate that additional investigation would alter verdict)
- State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2002) (ineffective assistance claims are generally litigated in Rule 32 proceedings)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (Ariz. 1984) (appellate counsel’s duties after filing an Anders brief)