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. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 10-05-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0256 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2008-110278-001 DT The Honorable Steven K. Holding, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Sullivan Law Office PLLC by Dianne Sullivan Attorneys for Appellant Mesa H A L L, Judge ¶1 Virgil Ray Hampton (defendant) appeals from his brief in convictions and the sentences imposed. ¶2 Defendant s appellate counsel filed a accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that, after a diligent search of the record, she was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which he has not done. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, & 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶3 We review for fundamental error, error that goes to the foundation of a case or takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense. See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424, 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988). We view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 182, & 2, 68 P.3d 407, 408 (2003). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶4 On February 22, 2008, defendant was charged by indictment with one count of resisting arrest (Count I), a class six felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-2508(A)(1) (2010) and one count of misconduct involving weapons (Count II), a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4) (2010). presented at trial. 2 The following evidence was ¶5 On February 14, 2008, while on routine patrol, Detectives C.M. and J.N. of the Phoenix Police Department were traveling west on Wier Road when they had to abruptly stop to avoid striking a brownish color Chevrolet Caprice that failed to stop at a stop sign and instead travelled several feet into the intersection. Detective C.M. turned his spotlight on the vehicle and recognized defendant1 as the driver. The detective then waved the vehicle on so the vehicle would be in front of them. ¶6 Once defendant s vehicle was positioned in front of them, the detectives activated their unmarked vehicle s interior emergency lights. Defendant did not pull over until he reached his Both residence. detectives exited their vehicle and approached defendant s car. ¶7 Defendant appeared nervous. When asked if he had any guns or drugs inside the vehicle, defendant stated that he did not. Detective C.M. then asked defendant to place his hands on the back of his neck and proceeded to help him exit the vehicle. After patted defendant him down stepped for out weapons of the and/or consented to a search of his vehicle. vehicle, Detective C.M. drugs. Defendant then Detective J.N. remained with defendant while Detective C.M. conducted the search of the 1 Detective C.M. knew defendant s criminal history and status as a prohibited possessor. At trial, the parties stipulated that defendant is a convicted felon and prohibited possessor. 3 vehicle. Detective C.M. found a handgun under the back seat and immediately exited the vehicle. As the detective approached defendant, defendant acted like he was going to jump up and run away. Detective C.M. pushed him down and told him he was under arrest. Defendant physically struggled with the officers for approximately thirty seconds before they were able to restrain him. ¶8 After a three-day guilty on both counts. convictions and the presumptive term of trial, the jury found defendant Defendant admitted three prior felony trial 3.75 court years sentenced in prison defendant on Count to I the and a concurrent presumptive 10 years in prison on Count II. ¶9 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentences imposed were within statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted. ¶10 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant s Counsel need 4 do decision, counsel s representation no more than in this inform defendant of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. Accordingly, defendant s convictions and sentences are affirmed. _/s/______________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge . /s/ PATRICK IRVINE, 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.