Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by David D. Weinzweig](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10804858/state-v-thomas/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 24-0263

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by David D. Weinzweig

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

AARON ALDRIC THOMAS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0263
FILED 03-06-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2022-108684-001
The Honorable David W. Garbarino, Judge

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Brown & Little PLC, Phoenix
By Matthew O. Brown
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. THOMAS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Aaron Aldric Thomas appeals his convictions and sentences
for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed robbery and one
count of burglary in the first degree. After searching the record and finding
no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Thomas’s counsel filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon,
104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel asks us to search the record for fundamental
error. Thomas could have filed a supplemental brief but did not.

¶2 We revested jurisdiction in the superior court so it could state
its sentencing reasoning on the record, as A.R.S. § 13-711(A) requires. State
v. Perez-Gutierrez, 257 Ariz. 334, 336, ¶ 3 (2024). The court did so on
November 3, 2025. Thomas’s counsel did not amend his appeal or file any
other items following entry of that order.

¶3 We affirm Thomas’s convictions and sentences with three
corrections to the sentencing order. We correct the sentencing order to
reflect that count 1 is non-repetitive. We also strike the sentencing order
assessments that were excluded from the oral sentence pronouncement.
And we correct the presentence incarceration credit to award Thomas the
credit he did not receive.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶4 Thomas and Kenneth Schriver hatched a plan to steal pain
pills from Thomas’s drug dealer (“Victim”). Thomas called Victim in late
January 2022 to say he would visit Victim’s home. Thomas and Schriver
left their cell phones at Schriver’s apartment so that law enforcement could
not trace their phones to Victim’s home. Thomas wore a black top, blue
jeans and a mask.

¶5 Victim lived in a casita behind his mother’s house. Schriver
deposited Thomas near that house and they agreed to meet afterward.
Thomas knocked on the casita door and Victim answered. When Victim

2
STATE v. THOMAS
Decision of the Court

turned his back, Thomas pulled a gun from his waist, pointed it at Victim’s
back and shot Victim multiple times. Thomas also shot Victim’s girlfriend
multiple times. Thomas continued shooting with a second gun he found
on a table after the gun he brought ran out of ammunition. Thomas then
took a backpack, the girlfriend’s phone, the second gun and drugs.

¶6 Mother was awakened by loud noises. She ran to the casita
and confronted Thomas who was still masked. Mother asked what
happened. He told her, “Get them, get them before they get away.” Mother
recognized Thomas’s voice from an earlier visit. She pushed the door open
and saw Victim lying on the floor dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
Girlfriend died from multiple gunshot wounds as well. Mother first chased
Thomas but returned to help Victim. As he fled the scene, Thomas touched
a pillar located on Victim’s property, leaving his DNA behind. Mother
called 911 and officers arrived at her home. Police arrested Thomas on
March 10, 2022.

¶7 Victim’s mother later identified Thomas by his voice. Thomas
knew that she heard his voice and said so in a text message to Schriver.

¶8 The State charged Thomas with two counts of first-degree
murder, a class 1 felony; two counts of armed robbery, a class 2 felony; and
two counts of first-degree burglary of a residential structure, a class 2
felony. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1105, -1904 and -1508. The State alleged all charges
were dangerous offenses. See A.R.S. § 13-105(13). The court later dismissed
one count of first-degree burglary on the State’s motion. The court held a
17-day trial with 12 jurors and 4 alternates.

¶9 Thomas was present for the entire trial except when (1) his
counsel documented on the record an inadvertent greeting exchanged
when a juror waved at him, (2) the attorneys and the court discussed
logistics with electronic exhibits and (3) his counsel told the court Thomas
had a medical condition requiring a private discussion. Thomas’s absence
is not an issue—even without a formal waiver by counsel. See State v.
Schackart, 190 Ariz. 238, 255–56 (1997) (whether the defendant’s presence
was waived is not an issue where there is a housekeeping matter that has
no argument, no other issue was addressed, the defendant could not have
contributed anything and the defendant failed to demonstrate that his
presence would have made any difference).

¶10 Thomas moved for a judgment of acquittal under Arizona
Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 at the close of the State’s case-in-chief. The
superior court denied the motion, finding that substantial evidence existed

3
STATE v. THOMAS
Decision of the Court

to warrant a conviction. Thomas testified in his own defense. He denied
killing Victim and Victim’s girlfriend. He testified that Schriver went to
Victim’s home to buy pills for him the night of the murders because Thomas
was in too much pain and discomfort to do it himself.

¶11 The jury entered guilty verdicts on all five remaining counts
and found they were all dangerous offenses. The parties stipulated before
sentencing that Thomas had three prior felony convictions. The superior
court sentenced Thomas to natural life for counts 1 and 2 (first-degree
murder) to run consecutively with one another. See A.R.S. § 13-751(A)(3).
The court gave Thomas a presentence incarceration credit of 785 days as to
count 1 but not count 2 because they ran consecutively. The court sentenced
Thomas to the maximum 21-year terms for count 3 (armed robbery), count
4 (armed robbery) and count 5 (first-degree burglary). See A.R.S. § 13-
704(A). The court ordered count 3 to run concurrently with count 1 and
counts 4 and 5 to run concurrently with count 2, and it gave no presentence
incarceration credit for counts 3 through 5.

¶12 Thomas timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶13 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for arguable issues of reversible error. See Leon, 104
Ariz. at 300. We conclude the court erred in imposing assessments,
awarding presentence incarceration credit and classifying count 1 in the
sentencing order as repetitive instead of non-repetitive.

¶14 First, the superior court’s sentencing order imposed a $20.00
probation assessment, $13.00 criminal penalty assessment and $2.00 victim
rights enforcement assessment against Thomas. But the court did not
include these in its oral pronouncement of sentence. The written sentencing
order must be corrected to strike the assessments. See State v. Ovante, 231
Ariz. 180, 188, ¶ 38 (2013) (holding that the oral pronouncement of a
sentence controls over the sentencing order).

¶15 Second, the superior court did not give Thomas presentence
incarceration credit for count 3 even though it runs concurrent with count
1. See State v. Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. 370, 375 (1983). A defendant is entitled
to presentence incarceration credit for all time spent in custody under an
offense. A.R.S. § 13-712(B). It is fundamental error to award an incorrect
amount of credit. State v. Ritch, 160 Ariz. 495, 498 (App. 1989). As noted
above, the court gave Thomas 785 days of presentence incarceration credit

4
STATE v. THOMAS
Decision of the Court

for count 1 which runs concurrent with count 3. Therefore, Thomas should
receive 785 days of presentence incarceration credit for count 3.

¶16 The sentencing order also erroneously lists count 1 as
repetitive, but the superior court did not sentence Thomas under the
repetitive offender statute, so the sentencing order must be corrected to list
count 1 as non-repetitive.

¶17 We find no other error. The record shows the superior court
protected Thomas’s constitutional and statutory rights and complied with
the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Counsel represented Thomas at
all critical stages. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support
the jury’s verdict. The jury was properly composed, instructed and did not
engage in misconduct. And other than the errors outlined above, Thomas’s
sentence falls within the range prescribed by law.

CONCLUSION

¶18 We affirm Thomas’s convictions and sentences except that we
correct the sentencing order to reflect that count 1 is non-repetitive rather
than repetitive; we strike the assessments from the sentencing order; and
we award Thomas 785 days of presentence incarceration credit for count 3.
Counsel’s obligations in this appeal will end once Thomas is informed of
the outcome and his future options, unless counsel finds an issue
appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On the court’s
own motion, Thomas has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed
with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 31.3(a), 31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

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

5