STATE OF ARIZONA v. JASON ANTHONY YANCEY
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 JUN 29 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JASON ANTHONY YANCEY, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0008 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20101884001 Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Kristine Maish Tucson Attorneys for Appellant H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 Appellant Jason Anthony Yancey was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated assault and attempted first degree murder, both dangerous offenses. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 10.5 years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no meritorious issue to appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Yancey has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that, in May 2010, Yancey repeatedly kicked the victim for an extended period of time, causing lifethreatening injuries. A.R.S. §§ 13-105(13), (39);1 13-1001(A); 13-1105(A)(1); 13-1203(A)(1); 13-1204(A)(1). ¶3 Counsel suggests that imposition of presumptive prison terms was excessive given Yancey s mental illness and drug addiction. As long as a sentence is within the permissible statutory limits, we will not modify or reduce it unless it is clearly excessive. See State v. Gillies, 142 Ariz. 564, 573, 691 P.2d 655, 664 (1984). We find no basis in the record to conclude Yancey s sentences were clearly excessive. See generally State v. Patton, 120 Ariz. 386, 388, 586 P.2d 635, 637 (1978) (appropriate sentence within statutory range rests in trial court s discretion; abuse of discretion characterized by arbitrariness, capriciousness, or failure to conduct adequate investigation into necessary facts). Yancey s sentences were within the prescribed statutory range and were imposed lawfully. A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A); 13-1001(C); 13-1105(D); 13-1204(D). 1 This section was amended after Yancey s offenses, but because the relevant portions have not changed, we cite the current version. 2011 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 90, § 1, ch. 114, § 1. 2 ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Yancey s convictions and sentences. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., 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.
