State v. Hampton
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. VIRGIL RAY HAMPTON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/2/10 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CR 09-0255 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2007-143631-001 DT The Honorable Steven K. Holding, Judge Pro Tempore The Honorable Colleen L. French, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Sullivan Law Office PLLC By Dianne Sullivan Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Mesa N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Virgil Ray Hampton timely appeals from his convictions and sentences for violating Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 28-622.01 (2004), Unlawful Flight from Pursuing Law Enforcement Vehicle, and A.R.S. § 13-2809 (2010), Tampering with Physical Evidence, respectively. a class five and a class six felony, After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Hampton s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking fundamental error. this court to search the record for This court granted counsel s motion to allow Hampton to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Hampton chose not to do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, therefore, affirm Hampton s convictions and sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 On July 8, 2007, at approximately 11 p.m., two police officers were driving a fully marked Phoenix Police Department patrol car with operational red and blue lights. saw an SUV make an illegal left turn. The officers The officers activated their vehicle s red and blue lights to stop the SUV. proceeded through a stop sign at five miles per The SUV hour and accelerated to approximately 40 to 50 miles per hour, exceeding 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all inferences against Hampton. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 the posted speed limit. The officers activated the siren, began to chase the SUV, and notified nearby officers of the chase. The SUV turned right onto another street, and an officer saw the SUV s driver throw a vial shattered upon impact. out the driver s window, which Soon after, the SUV s driver -- Hampton -- pulled over, and the officers took him into custody. The police was later confirmed the substance in the vial Phencyclidine ( PCP ). ¶3 On July 24, 2008, a jury found Hampton unlawful flight and tampering with physical evidence. sentenced Hampton to concurrent terms of guilty of The court imprisonment, five years for unlawful flight and 3.75 years for tampering, with 421 days of presentence incarceration credit for each count. DISCUSSION ¶4 We have reviewed error and find none. 881. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at Hampton received a fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages. ¶5 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdicts. members and the court The jury was properly composed of eight properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Hampton s presumption of innocence, the State s burden of proof, and the 3 necessity of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a presentence report, Hampton was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing, and his sentences were within the range of acceptable sentences for his offenses. CONCLUSION ¶6 We decline to order briefing and affirm Hampton s convictions and sentences. ¶7 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining appeal have ended. to Hampton s representation in this Defense counsel need do no more than inform Hampton of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). 4 ¶8 Hampton has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. days On the court s own motion, we also grant Hampton 30 from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration. /s/ __________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ____________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge 5
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.
