STATE OF ARIZONA v. KEVIN RANDY PERKINS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED BY CLERK 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 MAY 16 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. KEVIN RANDY PERKINS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0256 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR 20100007001 Honorable Christopher C. Browning, Judge AFFIRMED Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri B R A M M E R, Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 Appellant Kevin Perkins appeals from his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault, entered after a jury trial. The trial court found he had one historical prior felony conviction and sentenced him to an enhanced, presumptive, 4.5-year prison term. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no meritorious issue to argue on appeal. Consistent with Clark, she has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, and asks this court to search the record for error. Perkins has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established the following. In December 2009, after Perkins entered his girlfriend s house and found her male roommate, L.G., sleeping naked in bed with her, he punched L.G. numerous times, causing multiple injuries to his face, jaw, and ribs. We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury s verdict. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1203; 13-1204. ¶4 The record also supports the trial court s finding that Perkins knowingly, voluntarily, [and] intelligently waived his rights and admitted to one historical prior felony conviction for the purpose of sentence enhancement. Perkins s sentence was authorized by statute and imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. § 13-703(I). 2 ¶5 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Perkins s conviction and sentence. /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge 3

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.