STATE v. ABDI
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.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/23/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. HIDIG NUUR ABDI, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 11-0807 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-120571-001 DT The Honorable Sammuel A. Thumma, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Bruce Peterson, Office of the Legal Advocate By Frances Gray, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H O W E, Judge ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Hidig Nuur Adbi, asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Abdi was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Abdi s conviction and sentence for aggravated assault. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court s judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Abdi. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). cousins. Abdi and the victim are During a night of drinking at the victim s apartment, Adbi got into a fight with the victim s neighbor. left and Abdi followed him outside. victim would not let him back in. The neighbor When Abdi returned, the Abdi tried to force his way into the apartment by kicking the door and breaking a window before discovering that the door had been unlocked. entered through the door, the cousins began When he fighting. grabbed a kitchen knife and cut the victim s arm. Abdi Abdi fled. The victim called 9-1-1 and reported that Abdi had stabbed him. Police stopped Abdi on a nearby street with blood on his clothing. ¶3 The State charged Abdi with aggravated assault, a class 3 felony and a dangerous offense because he used a knife. On the first day of trial, Abdi stated that he disagreed with his attorney s trial strategy and accordingly waived his right 2 to counsel. The trial court appointed Abdi s attorney as advisory counsel. Abdi revoked his waiver later the same day, however, advisory and the counsel represented Abdi for the remainder of the proceedings. ¶4 The victim did not want to press charges or testify against Abdi, but was subpoenaed as a witness. Although the victim testified that he could not recall any details about the fight, his injury or what he told police, he stated that his report to police that night was truthful. The jury then heard testimony from a police officer regarding the victim s report of the incident and a recording of his 9-1-1 call. At the close of the evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. The jury convicted Abdi of aggravated assault, a class three felony and found that it was a dangerous crime. ¶5 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Abdi s constitutional rights and Rule 26 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. minimum five-year prison sentence The trial court imposed a with credit for 204 days sentence for presentence incarceration. DISCUSSION ¶6 We review fundamental error. Abdi s conviction and See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). Counsel for Abdi has advised this 3 Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law. We have read and considered counsel s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Abdi was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, both before he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel on the first day of trial and after he revoked the waiver that same day. statutory limits. The sentence imposed was within the We decline to order briefing, and we affirm Abdi s conviction and sentence. ¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Abdi of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, 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, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Abdi shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. extend the time for Abdi On the Court s own motion, we to file a pro per motion reconsideration to thirty days from the date of this decision. 4 for CONCLUSION ¶8 We affirm. ____/s/_______________________________ RANDALL M. HOWE, Judge CONCURRING: ___/s/______________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge __/s/________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, 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.
