STATE v. GIBSON
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); IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) STEVEN MICHAEL GIBSON, ) ) Appellant. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/15/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt No. 1 CA-CR 13-0471 Department S MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. P1300CR201201190 The Honorable Cele Hancock, Judge CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Eliza C. Ybarra, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Nicole Farnum Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Phoenix J O H N S E N, Chief Judge ¶1 Steven Michael Gibson was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault, Class 4 felonies, and one count of resisting arrest, a Class 6 felony. The court imposed consecutive one- year sentences on each of the aggravated assault convictions and a concurrent one-year term of incarceration on the conviction for resisting arrest. ¶2 On appeal, Gibson does not dispute his convictions and does not contest the sentences imposed on the three aggravated assault convictions. He argues, however, that the superior court s imposition of a one-year term for resisting arrest is inconsistent with statements of the court during sentencing and in the judgment of conviction that it intended to impose a mitigated sentence on that conviction. Gibson points out that although to the court stated it intended impose a mitigated sentence, the one-year sentence it imposed is the presumptive sentence for a Class 6 felony. ¶3 See A.R.S. § 13-702(D) (2013). 1 The State confesses error, acknowledging that one year is the presumptive sentence for the Class 6 felony of resisting arrest, and that [e]ither the trial court erred in calling the sentence mitigated or it erred in sentencing [Gibson] to one year. For the same reason, we agree that the sentence should be remanded so that the superior court may clarify its intent. ¶4 the For the reasons stated, we affirm the convictions and sentences imposed for the 1 three aggravated assault Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite a statute s current version. 2 convictions, but vacate and remand the sentence imposed resisting arrest. ________/s/____________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Chief Judge CONCURRING: ______/S/____________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge ______/S/___________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge 3 for
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.
