0241. . State v. Covell

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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, v. FREDERICK WILLIAM COVELL, Appellant. The Daniel A. court, Barker and Presiding Sheldon 1 CA-CR 09-0240 1 CA-CR 09-0241 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT C Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2003-019318-001 DT CR2007-166226-001 DT DECISION ORDER Judge H. DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/24/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH Donn Kessler Weisberg and Judges participating, has considered Appellant s appeal of his convictions and sentences under Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-3102(A)(4) (Supp. 2007) for two counts of misconduct involving weapons, class four felonies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). Appellant s only issue on appeal is that insufficient evidence supports his convictions and sentences for misconduct involving weapons. Both counts prohibited possessor. require proof that Appellant was a A.R.S. §§ 13-3102(A)(4), 13-3101(A)(6)(b) (Supp. 2007). Appellant contends and Appellee concedes that no evidence was submitted to the jury regarding Appellant s status as a prohibited possessor. Although Appellant did not object to the submission of the case to the jury or move for a judgment of acquittal at trial on this ground, we review for fundamental error. State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, 412 n.2, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 912, 914 n.2 (2005). It is, however, fundamental error to convict a person for a crime when the evidence does not support a conviction. 232, 673 committed jury s P.2d Id. (quoting State v. Roberts, 138 Ariz. 230, 974, 976 fundamental finding Accordingly, we that (App. error because Appellant reverse 1983)). was Appellant s no a The superior evidence supports prohibited convictions court and the possessor. sentences for two counts of misconduct involving weapons, as reflected in counts two and three of the charges. The conviction sentence as to count four are not affected by this ruling. /s/ __________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge 2 and

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.