State v. Vaughn

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. DENNIS JAMES VAUGHN, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 06-29-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0331 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2006-162531-001 DT The Honorable Kristin C. Hoffman, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section and Sarah E. Heckathorne, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Stephen R. Collins, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant B A R K E R, Judge Phoenix ¶1 Dennis James Vaughn appeals his convictions and sentences arguing that (1) the trial court erred by failing to make findings of fact to support its verdict and (2) his jury trial waiver was invalid. For the following reasons, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History ¶2 We favorable review to the factual sustaining the inferences against Vaughn. evidence court s in verdict the and light most resolve all State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). On October 4, 2006, two informants told police officers Vaughn was dealing in illegal substances. illegal The drugs unsuccessful. by officers the attempted informants, but a controlled they were buy of ultimately Vaughn told the informants he knew what was up, to not come around anymore, and that if the man -- referring to police officers -- did show up at his house, that it would be one hell of a fight, while lifting up his shirt and revealing a Glock. Vaughn also stated that the man ain t going to bring him down. One of the informants had known Vaughn since the informant was a child and he had seen grenades and automatic weapons at Vaughn s home over a dozen times; Vaughn told the informant he converted his semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons himself. The other informant had also seen automatic weapons, grenades, and suppressors/silencers at Vaughn s home. Vaughn was a prohibited possessor of weapons. 2 ¶3 Officers warrant because obtained of a a Vaughn s possession of information about explosives, automatic nighttime/no-knock history resisting shotgun sawed-off of in combination grenades being weapons, in the arrest with house, suppressors, search and and the possible statements saying that he would shoot it out with police officers if they ever came to his house. In the early morning of October 5, 2006, two SWAT teams and a cameraman for SWAT U.S.A. arrived at Vaughn s residence. An unsuccessful explosive charge was attempted on the door of his house leaving a security door. Officer C.S. then physically removed the door and heard shots coming from Sheriff s inside office. the house. Search Several warrant, automatic gunfire in response. and officers heard yelled a out, yell and Officer C.S. was shot in his right leg and knew someone was trying to take [his] life. Sergeant G.P. left his position and moved to the front and was shot in the back. Sergeant G.P. was shot several times thereafter, and other officers extricated him from the house. ¶4 An armor personnel vehicle moved into the front yard and started making very loud announcements for subjects inside the residence to come out. and was taken into Vaughn came out with his hands up custody. A few minutes grandson and wife also came out of the house. later, Vaughn s Officer s entered the residence and found an AK-47 rifle lying on a recliner in 3 the living room, an AR-15 rifle with a night scope lying on a couch, a Glock pistol on the coffee table, and multiple weapons located throughout the residence. Police also discovered a TV that was used as a surveillance monitor of the front entryway, and a bipod on the coffee table used to keep a rifle steady as rounds are fired. ¶5 On January 29, 2009, Vaughn waived his right to a jury trial by both signing a written document and entering into a colloquy with the court. His case proceeded to trial by the court and Vaughn presented a guilty but insane defense. convicted of all charges, including twenty-five He was counts of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, and six counts of sentenced possession to the of a following prohibitive terms of weapon. imprisonment: Vaughn was aggravated terms of twenty-one years each for counts 1 and 2, presumptive terms of ten and a half years each for counts 3 through 24, a presumptive term of seven and a half years on amended count 25, presumptive terms of two and a quarter years on counts 26 and 27, and presumptive terms of two and half years on counts 28 through 33. The trial court ordered the sentences on counts 1 through 25 to be served consecutively, the sentences on counts 26 through 33 were to be served concurrently with one another, but consecutive to counts 1 through 25, and he was awarded 925 4 days of presentence incarceration credit on count 3. Vaughn was also ordered to pay $423,199.14 in restitution. ¶6 Vaughn filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). Discussion 1. The Trial Court s Decision to Not Make Findings ¶7 Vaughn contends the trial court s failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its verdict violated his constitutional right to a meaningful appeal. The State points out that a criminal defendant has a right to a record of meaningful (1963) sufficient review, (citing completeness Draper Coppedge v. v. on Washington, United States, appeal 372 369 to ensure U.S. 487, 497 U.S. 438, 446 (1962)), but that [t]here is no criminal rule of procedure for requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law. Jones, 95 Ariz. 230, 233, 388 P.2d 806, 808 (1964). State v. The Arizona Supreme Court has encouraged trial courts to include in the record the reasons for their decisions so that appellate courts may review those decisions in a more directed and efficacious manner. State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227, 236 n.1, 686 P.2d 750, 759 n.1 (1984). However, when a criminal case is tried to the court instead of a jury, the trial court is not required to make 5 findings of fact and conclusions of law, even when requested by the defendant. State v. West, 173 Ariz. 602, 607-08, 845 P.2d 1097, 1102-03 (App. 1992). ¶8 Additionally, Vaughn s argument is not well taken in light of the fact [w]e are obliged to affirm the trial court s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason. State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459, 464, 687 P.2d 1214, 1219 (1984). We do not rely review, solely but on the consider trial the court s issues and findings for arguments appellate raised determine if the court arrived at the proper conclusion. whether the otherwise court proper irrelevant. appeal. trial Id. made conclusion no but findings, for a or came and Thus, an reason, flawed to is Neither scenario diminishes the value of the Although a trial court s findings of fact and conclusions of law can aid our review by directing it and making it more efficacious, they are not necessary for a meaningful review. When reviewing issues raised by appellants, appellate courts will not uphold a trial court s judgment if it is not supported by the evidence, regardless of whether or not trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. the State v. West, 173 Ariz. 602, 610, 845 P.2d 1097, 1105 (App. 1992) (reversal for insufficient evidence occurs where there is a complete absence of probative facts or where the judgment is contrary to substantial evidence in the record ). 6 Therefore, we find the trial court s decision to not make findings of fact and conclusions Vaughn s of law to constitutional support right its to a verdict did meaningful not appeal violate or any applicable statute or court rule. 1 2. Jury Trial Waiver ¶9 The only basis for error that Vaughn asserts as to his waiver of a jury trial is that he should have been advised that by agreeing to a bench trial without any findings of fact he would lose his right to meaningful appeal. For the reasons we have just set forth, a defendant does not lose the right to a meaningful appeal when tried in a bench trial without findings. Accordingly, there was no error as to the waiver of a jury trial. Conclusion ¶10 For the foregoing convictions and sentences. reasons we affirm Vaughn s /s/ _____________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge 1 /s/ _____________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge Appellant does not contest that there are facts sufficient to support the trial court s verdict, and the record shows there are. 7

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.