State v. White

Opinion

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.

SCOTTY KAMAKAHOOHIE WHITE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0470

FILED 09-09-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in La Paz County No. S1500CR202400230

The Honorable Robert Duber, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Casey Ball Counsel for Appellee

Ruffner Law, PLLC, Lake Havasu City By Scott W. Ruffner Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. WHITE Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Veronika Fabian and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Scotty White appeals his conviction of second-degree burglary and the resulting sentence. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 One morning in mid-September 2024, Lieutenant Schlecht of the La Paz County Sheriff’s Office (then off-duty) was on a walk through a neighborhood in Parker. Around 6:00 a.m., Schlecht saw White walking through a gravel yard, moving away from a vacant house. White was carrying two gun bags, one black and one grey. Schlecht recognized White from prior interactions, and the two made eye contact as they passed one another at a short distance. Schlecht returned to the vacant house when on duty later that morning, saw the doors were not secured, and reported the matter to dispatch.

¶3 The house’s renter, who lived elsewhere but checked on the house weekly, said two gun bags were missing from inside: a long, grey zipper bag and a slightly shorter, black zipper bag. The bags had been deep within the house, several rooms away from either entrance. Both the renter and the house’s owner confirmed that they did not know White and had not given him permission to enter the house or remove items.

¶4 Schlecht told the investigating deputy about seeing White that morning and described White’s clothing. White was arrested later that day, wearing the same clothing Schlecht had described. The gun bags were never recovered.

¶5 The State charged White with second-degree burglary. At trial, White offered an alibi defense (his girlfriend testified that he was at home asleep with her at the time) and challenged the adequacy of the investigation. The jury found White guilty as charged.

¶6 The court sentenced White as a category one repetitive offender to a less-than-presumptive term of three years’ imprisonment.

3

STATE v. WHITE Decision of the Court

White timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 13- 4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 White challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of second-degree burglary. An individual commits second- degree burglary by “entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.” A.R.S. § 13-1507(A); see also A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1) (defining “theft” to include knowingly and without lawful authority “[c]ontrol[ling] property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of such property”).

¶8 We consider sufficiency of the evidence de novo, assessing whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, was such that a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶¶ 15–16 (2011). Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial; Arizona law draws no distinction between the two. State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 603 (1993). And if probative evidence supports the verdict, the existence of conflicting evidence does not undermine its sufficiency. See State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, 231, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).

¶9 Highlighting the absence of forensic evidence and the fact that Schlecht saw him only outside, White asserts that no evidence showed he ever entered the house, which is an element of the offense of burglary. See A.R.S. § 13-1507(A). But Schlecht testified that he saw White walking through the yard away from the house while carrying black and grey gun bags. The house renter testified that two such gun bags were missing and were inside the house just days before. Even if circumstantial, this evidence permitted an inference of entry sufficient to support the conviction. See West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16.

¶10 White further asserts that the evidence identifying him as the perpetrator was not sufficient to support his conviction. He highlights that the house could have been broken into days earlier, that no stolen property was found in his possession and that no forensic evidence tied him to the crime scene. White also emphasizes that his girlfriend testified he was with her at the time and that during the investigation, the deputy mistook a neighborhood man for White.

¶11 But Schlecht testified that he saw, recognized, and identified White by name as White passed him, walking away from the house with the renter’s gun bags over his shoulder. When arrested later that day, White

4

STATE v. WHITE Decision of the Court

was wearing the same clothes Schlecht had described. See State v. Smith, 250 Ariz. 69, 84–85, ¶ 50 (2020) (gauging reliability of a pretrial identification based on factors including the witness’s degree of attention and opportunity to view the defendant, the accuracy of the witness’s description, and the witness’s initial level of certainty) (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199–200 (1972)). Ultimately, the jury had to assess the witnesses’ credibility and determine how to weigh and resolve conflicting evidence. See State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357, ¶ 27 (2007). Even though White offered an alternative theory, Schlecht’s identification testimony provided a sufficient basis for the jury’s verdict. See Williams, 209 Ariz. at 231, ¶ 6.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR