STATE v. CZAHARA

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. ) ) MICHAEL ANDREW CZAHARA, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 5/16/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-CR 12-0686 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. V1300CR201180279 The Honorable Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee David Goldberg, Esq. By David Goldberg Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Fort Collins, CO B R O W N, Judge ¶1 sentences Michael Andrew Czahara for aggravated appeals assault and his convictions disorderly and conduct. Counsel for Czahara 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 searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. Czahara was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. is to review the 289, sustaining 293, record for We view the facts in the light most the conviction reasonable inferences against Czahara. Ariz. entire State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). favorable to 778 P.2d 1185, and resolve all State v. Guerra, 161 1189 (1989). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 In June 2011, the State charged Czahara with one count of aggravated assault by using a dangerous instrument, a class 3 felony in section violation of 13-1204(A)(2) Arizona (2013), 1 Revised and two Statutes counts of ( A.R.S. ) disorderly conduct, class 1 misdemeanors in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2904 (2013). ¶4 The following evidence was presented at trial. M.F. was walking her dogs stopped to speak with a neighbor, C.T. M.F. looked down the street and in her neighborhood and During the conversation, noticed an oncoming car traveling directly towards where M.F. and C.T. were standing. 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute s current version. 2 Because the car was quickly approaching, M.F. froze in place and C.T. darted across the street to avoid the vehicle. The car stopped short of striking M.F., but she could see that Czahara was driving the vehicle. M.F. was scared that the vehicle was going to strike her and she was not ready to die yet. After stopping, Czahara attempted to back his vehicle into a driveway, but was repeatedly obstructed by a large rock. Czahara then exited his vehicle and yelled out, Wait until you see what happens next. block and M.F. then finished walking her dogs around the returned home. Once inside her house, M.F. saw Czahara standing in front of her home yelling and screaming and she called 9-1-1. ¶5 C.T. was working in her front yard when she saw M.F. walking her dogs and the two began talking. While speaking with M.F., C.T. noticed Czahara driving quickly down the street and then saw that his vehicle was pointed towards them. As Czahara approached, C.T. ran across the street because she was scared of being hit by the vehicle. C.T. then saw Czahara stop his vehicle within a few feet of M.F. and attempt to back into a driveway. When Czahara exited his vehicle, C.T. heard him yell, Just wait until you see what happens next. ¶6 A sheriff s deputy responded to a dispatch directing him to the street where M.F. lived. As he approached the area, the deputy attempted to pull over a vehicle that matched the 3 description from the dispatch. The car he was following sped up to approximately 50 miles-per-hour but soon came to an abrupt stop. Czahara, who was visibly agitated and initially refused to comply with the deputy s instructions, exited the vehicle and was eventually placed under arrest. ¶7 A jury found Czahara guilty of aggravated assault by using a dangerous instrument and one count of disorderly conduct but acquitted him on the other count. At sentencing, the court heard statements from both M.F. and Czahara and determined that a slightly mitigated sentence of 6.5 years imprisonment for aggravated assault was appropriate. The court sentenced Czahara to time served for the disorderly conduct conviction. ¶8 We have searched error and find none. the entire record for reversible All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record shows Defendant was present and represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Based on the foregoing, we affirm Czahara s convictions and sentences. ¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Czahara of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme 4 Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Czahara shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. _____________/s/_________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: ______________/s/__________________ SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Presiding Judge ______________/s/__________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, 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.