STATE OF ARIZONA v. TRACY A. HAMPTON

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TRACY A. HAMPTON, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0096 Filed September 2, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR201402922 The Honorable Dwight P. Callahan, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. HAMPTON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Miller concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Tracy Hampton was convicted of aggravated assault. The court found Hampton had two historical prior felony convictions, and sentenced him to an enhanced, presumptive five-year prison term. ¶2 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), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. She asks this court to search the record for error. Hampton has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports it. In May 2014, Hampton, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections, threw hot water into the face of a corrections officer, causing burns. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(10). Sufficient evidence also supported the trial court’s finding that Hampton had two historical prior felony convictions. His sentence is within the statutory range and was properly imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-711(B), 13-1204(D). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). We therefore affirm Hampton’s conviction and sentence. 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.