State v. Wilson

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, v. DAVID LEE WILSON, ) ) Appellee, ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant. ) ) 1 CA-CR 10-0029 DEPARTMENT D DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/23/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-116270-001SE The Honorable John R. Hannah,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 AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge ¶1 conviction David and Lee Wilson sentence for ( Appellant ) aggravated appeals assault. from his Appellant s 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 question of law that is not frivolous. Appellant s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. 96 See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, (App. record 1999) for Appellant (stating reversible the that this error). opportunity to court Although file a reviews this the court supplemental entire granted brief in propria persona, he has not done so. ¶2 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 13-4033(A) (2010). Finding no reversible error, we affirm Appellant s conviction and sentence. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 sustaining We review the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict against Appellant. and resolve all reasonable inferences See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994). ¶4 On April 30, 2009, the State charged Appellant by information with one count of aggravated assault, a class three 2 felony. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1203 (2010), -1204 (2010). 1 The State later alleged that Appellant had six non-dangerous historical prior felony convictions and that the charged offense was a dangerous offense because it involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. Additionally, the State See filed an A.R.S. § allegation 13-704 of (2010). aggravating circumstances other than prior convictions. ¶5 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 engaged in an argument. After the argument, Erica called 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 the victim, and the two men began to argue. The victim threatened to kick [Appellant s] ass if Appellant exited the vehicle, lived. and he told Appellant that he knew where Appellant Appellant nonetheless exited his vehicle and approached the victim. 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 1 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have occurred. 3 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. ¶6 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. and heard the vehicle The victim continued walking accelerate toward him. The victim 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. ¶7 The police contacted Appellant by telephone. 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. Appellant also stated that he only intended to hurt the victim, not to kill him. Additionally, Appellant acknowledged there might have been a better way to handle the situation. ¶8 Appellant testified at trial that he knew both the victim and Erica. On the morning of the incident, Erica called 4 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. next to vehicle the to backpack, victim, retrieve however, altercation asked the the backpack, backpack. the ensued. for victim After When pushed the Appellant pulled up he and exited his reached and him, for physical a altercation, threatened to kill Appellant and began to leave. the the victim Appellant re- entered his vehicle, followed the victim to the front of the store, exited the vehicle, and warned the victim not to threaten him. A security guard told Appellant to leave, and Appellant re-entered his vehicle and began to drive away. Appellant only drove to the back of the parking lot behind the store, however, where he tried to call his son. Shortly thereafter, the victim came metal around the corner with a approached Appellant s vehicle. pipe in his hand and Appellant removed his foot from the vehicle s brake, and the vehicle moved forward, striking the victim. The pipe rolled away, and Appellant picked it up. When Appellant left, the victim was sitting up in the parking lot. Appellant also admitted having one prior felony conviction. ¶9 The jury charged, and further determined that the crime was a dangerous offense. The jury one subsequently aggravating factor, found Appellant determined that specifically 5 guilty the that as State the had offense proven had caused physical, emotional, or financial harm to the victim. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a slightly aggravated term of 11.25 years imprisonment in the Arizona Department of Corrections and credited Appellant incarceration. for sixty-three days of pre-sentence Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. ANALYSIS ¶10 We have reviewed error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict, and the sentence was within the statutory limits. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. were conducted in compliance with his The proceedings constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶11 After obligations appeal have filing pertaining ended. of to this decision, Appellant s Counsel need do defense counsel s representation no more than in this inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. for 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 6 proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. III. CONCLUSION ¶12 Appellant s conviction and sentence are affirmed. _________________/S/_________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ______________/S/__________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge _____________/S/___________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 7

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.