STATE OF ARIZONA v. CECIL FULWILDER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CECIL FULWILDER, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0052 Filed October 3, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201501600 The Honorable Stephen F. McCarville, Judge The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Flores & Clark, PC, Globe By Daisy Flores Counsel for Appellant STATE v. FULWILDER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Howard concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Cecil Fulwilder was convicted of aggravated assault and threatening or intimidating, both domestic violence offenses. The trial court sentenced him to 11.25 years’ imprisonment on the assault charge and to time served on the remaining count. 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 “[n]o arguable question of law” to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Fulwilder has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, 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 Fulwilder hit his former girlfriend with a hatchet and threatened to “chop [her] legs off.” We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-707(A)(1), 131202(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-3601. ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Fulwilder’s convictions and sentences. 2

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.