State v. Bunton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANDY BUNTON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 05-27-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0831 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-172904-001 DT The Honorable Lisa Daniel Flores, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Spencer D. Heffel, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H A L L, Judge ¶1 Andy Bunton (defendant) appeals from his conviction and the sentence imposed. Defendant=s appellate counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that, after a diligent search of the record, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, & 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶2 We review for fundamental error, error that goes to the foundation of a case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense. See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424, 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988). We view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 182, & 2, 68 P.3d 407, 408 (2003). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 Defendant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated assault, a class three felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-1204(A)(2) (2010). ¶4 The following evidence was presented at trial. D.R. testified that on November 20, 2008, defendant, a friend of D.R., came sleepy. him to to his home and appeared to be tired, thirsty, D.R. escorted defendant to his son s room and allowed lay down and rest for 2 awhile. While defendant was resting, another friend of D.R. arrived at the home and asked D.R. for some bike parts. D.R. testified that he and this other friend were looking for bike parts in D.R. s room when defendant came into the room. D.R. further stated that defendant appeared angry and was getting kind of violent. The other friend was offended and wanted to confront defendant, but D.R. persuaded his friend to leave the room. and the other friend Defendant stayed in the bedroom went to the living room and left approximately twenty minutes later. ¶5 D.R. later went to check on defendant and observed him with a screwdriver in his hand. and proceeded to take it away. not for him. D.R. asked him to put it down Defendant told D.R. that it was D.R. left defendant in the room again only to come back a short time later to find another screwdriver in his hand. D.R. testified that he got nervous and asked defendant to leave. ¶6 Approximately twenty reappeared at D.R. s house. and let him in. minutes later, defendant R.R., D.R. s son, answered the door D.R. testified that he got up from the couch, went to the door and before he could say anything, defendant stabbed him in the stomach with a knife. asked why did you stab me? D.R. screamed and D.R. testified that defendant just had this blank look in his face. D.R. moved a coffee table between defendant and his family, grabbed a broom stick, and 3 shoved defendant out the door. C.T., D.R. s wife, then called 9-1-1. ¶7 When Officer B.A. of the Glendale Police Department arrived on the scene, he observed D.R. holding a towel to his abdomenal area. sitting on a chair The officer spoke with D.R., his wife, and their son and was informed that defendant had stabbed D.R. ¶8 Officer S.J. of searched for defendant. the Glendale Police Department Eventually, he found defendant in a grove of trees and placed him under arrest. ¶9 found Defendant competent to was evaluated stand trial. for mental Through competency counsel, and defendant claimed at trial that the stabbing was the result of mistake or accident. After a three-day trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court found that defendant had two historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him to the presumptive term of 11.25 years in prison. ¶10 We have read and considered counsel=s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Furthermore, 4 based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted. ¶11 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant=s Counsel need decision, counsel=s representation do no more than in this inform defendant of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel=s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. Accordingly, defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed. _/s/______________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Presiding Judge . /s/ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge . 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.