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
STATE OF ARIZONA,
DAVID LEE WILSON,
1 CA-CR 10-0029
(Not for Publication –
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2009-116270-001SE
The Honorable John R. Hannah, Judge
Terry Goddard, Attorney General
Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel,
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge
counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins,
528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating
that he has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable
therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental
See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89,
propria persona, he has not done so.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona
Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes
(“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and
Appellant’s conviction and sentence.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
We review the facts in the light most favorable to
See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887
P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994).
information with one count of aggravated assault, a class three
See A.R.S. §§ 13-1203 (2010), -1204 (2010). 1
later alleged that Appellant had six non-dangerous historical
dangerous offense because it involved the use of a deadly weapon
circumstances other than prior convictions.
At trial, the State presented the following evidence:
On December 22, 2008, at approximately 9:00 a.m., the victim was
at the home of his girlfriend, Erica, when the two of them
Appellant while the victim gathered some belongings, left, and
began walking home.
As the victim crossed through the parking
lot of an electronics store, a vehicle pulled up next to him.
Appellant, who was the driver of the vehicle, began shouting at
threatened to “kick [Appellant’s] ass” if Appellant exited the
Appellant nonetheless exited his vehicle and approached
After a brief physical altercation, the victim went
to the front of the store to seek help from the store’s security
personnel, while Appellant re-entered his vehicle, sped through
We cite the current version of the applicable statutes
because no revisions material to this decision have occurred.
the parking lot to the front of the store, exited his vehicle,
and yelled at the victim, “[W]hat the f--- did you say to me?”
After a security guard asked Appellant to leave, Appellant reentered his vehicle and drove away.
The victim waited a few minutes and eventually began
to walk home.
As he did so, however, he observed Appellant’s
vehicle parked behind the store.
The victim continued walking
attempted to jump out of the way; however, the front of the
vehicle struck him in the lower back, causing him to fall on the
pavement and suffer various “road rash” injuries, including a
three-inch gash to the back of his head.
The victim eventually
stood up, limped home, and explained what had happened to his
father, who called the police.
Paramedics later arrived and
treated the victim.
Appellant admitted striking the victim, but stated that he did
so because he did not want the victim to follow through with
threats made by the victim earlier that day.
stated that he only intended to hurt the victim, not to kill
Additionally, Appellant acknowledged there might have been
a better way to handle the situation.
Appellant testified at trial that he knew both the
victim and Erica.
On the morning of the incident, Erica called
Appellant, and she asked him to pick her up at a nearby mall.
As he drove to the mall, Appellant observed the victim, who
appeared to be carrying Erica’s backpack.
Appellant pulled up
threatened to kill Appellant and began to leave.
entered his vehicle, followed the victim to the front of the
store, exited the vehicle, and warned the victim not to threaten
A security guard told Appellant to leave, and Appellant
re-entered his vehicle and began to drive away.
drove to the back of the parking lot behind the store, however,
where he tried to call his son.
Shortly thereafter, the victim
approached Appellant’s vehicle.
Appellant removed his foot from
the vehicle’s brake, and the vehicle moved forward, striking the
The pipe rolled away, and Appellant picked it up.
Appellant left, the victim was sitting up in the parking lot.
Appellant also admitted having one prior felony conviction.
further determined that the crime was a dangerous offense.
physical, emotional, or financial harm to the victim.
court sentenced Appellant to a slightly aggravated term of 11.25
years’ imprisonment in the Arizona Department of Corrections and
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
error and find none.
See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at
881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96.
presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict, and
the sentence was within the statutory limits.
represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was
given the opportunity to speak at sentencing.
statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Appellant of the status of the appeal and of his future options,
petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
See State v.
Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984).
Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to
reconsideration or petition for review.
Appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge
PATRICK IRVINE, Judge