State v. Vickerman
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.Sup.Ct. 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. JAMES WILLIAM VICKERMAN, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10-07-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 10-0007 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-106148-001 DT The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Maricopa County Public Defender by Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix I R V I N E, Judge ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for James William Vickerman asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Vickerman was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court s judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Vickerman. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). ¶3 house On October 11, 2007, the victim went to Vickerman s wearing friend. When a the baseball victim cap that entered the belonged garage, to a Vickerman s mutual friend grabbed the cap off his head. Vickerman laughed and taunted the victim, saying, I told you you should have given the hat back. The victim told him to shut up and turned to leave. Vickerman screamed, Don t tell me to shut up in my own house. He punched the victim in the face, knocking out two front teeth. Later, he told his brother that he punched the victim [f]or being a smart-ass. ¶4 class The State charged Vickerman with aggravated assault, a 4 ( A.R.S. ) felony § in violation 13-1204(A) of (Supp. 2 Arizona 2007). At Revised the close Statutes of the evidence, defense counsel requested a self-defense instruction, which was denied for insufficient evidence. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. Vickerman was convicted as charged. ¶5 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance Rule of with Vickerman s Criminal constitutional Procedure 26. The rights trial and court Arizona imposed a suspended sentence of two years probation and ordered him to pay the victim restitution. DISCUSSION ¶6 We review Vickerman s conviction and sentence for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). Counsel for Vickerman has advised this court that after a diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law. The court has read and considered counsel s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Vickerman was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing and affirm his conviction and sentence. 3 ¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Vickerman of the status of his appeal and of his future unless, options. upon Defense review, counsel counsel has finds an no further issue obligations 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). Vickerman shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. On the court s own motion, we extend the time for Vickerman to file a pro per motion for reconsideration to thirty days from the date of this decision. CONCLUSION ¶8 We affirm. /s/ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ PHILIP HALL, Judge 4
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.
