State v. Morris

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. ) ) MARK ANTHONY MORRIS, ) ) Appellant. ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/18/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL No. 1 CA-CR 10-0666 1 CA-CR 10-0669 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause Nos. CR2006-166112-001 SE, CR2008-111440-001 DT (Consolidated) The Honorable Maria del Mar Verdin, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Melissa M. Swearingen, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant B R O W N, Judge Phoenix ¶1 Mark Anthony Morris appeals from his convictions and sentences for conviction of misconduct possession of methamphetamine. involving weapons and He challenges only the sentences imposed, asserting that the trial court erred in determining that he had two prior historical felony convictions. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶2 In October of 2006, Morris was stopped by a police officer in Phoenix. The officer discovered that Morris was driving with a suspended license and placed him under arrest. During a subsequent search of the vehicle, a gun was discovered as well as pills later found to contain methamphetamine. ¶3 Morris was charged with misconduct involving weapons and possession of methamphetamine, both class 4 felonies, in separate indictments that were later consolidated for trial. The State alleged numerous historical prior offenses, as well as the potential use of future convictions on pending charges. The State later dismissed some of the pending charges and re-charged them with other offenses in a new case. ¶4 At trial, Morris testified and admitted two convictions in 1992, and a federal weapons conviction. found Morris guilty of both charges, and also felony The jury found the aggravating factor that Morris had previously served time in prison. 2 ¶5 At sentencing, Morris did not argue that his admitted priors failed to qualify for enhancement, except to ask whether the federal conviction could be used. The State asserted generally that the federal statute mirrored the Arizona statute and would qualify as a prior for sentencing, but did not provide any specific authority to compare the elements of the offenses. Likewise, the court did not engage in any specific analysis or finding on the matter. ¶6 Morris was sentenced to presumptive terms of 10 years for each conviction, to be served concurrently with a 13.5 year aggravated term in a different cause number. 1 The record does not contain any specific findings that the trial court relied on historical sentence, prior but felony the convictions court must have in imposing done categorize the sentences as presumptive. ( A.R.S. ) § 13-703 (2010). 2 so to the be 10-year able to See Ariz. Rev. Stat. This timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION ¶7 Morris insufficient to argues serve that as his historical prior prior convictions convictions were for 1 Morris was sentenced for four different cause numbers at the sentencing hearing, each of which included various counts. The cause numbers were: CR 2003-038528, CR 2006-166112, CR 2008-111440, and CR 2009-006265. Morris had previously entered a plea agreement in the 2003 and 2009 matters. 2 Though the criminal sentencing statutes were renumbered after the date of Morris s offenses, absent material revisions, we cite the current version of the statute. 3 sentence enhancement purposes. He argues that two of the convictions were too remote in time and that the State failed to show that the federal felony conviction would be punishable as a felony in the state of Arizona. Morris did not raise this argument or otherwise object at sentencing; thus, we review only for fundamental error. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005). To prevail under this standard of review, a defendant must establish that: (1) error occurred; (2) the error is fundamental; defendant prejudice. ¶8 and (3) the error the Id. at 568, ¶¶ 23-26, 115 P.3d at 608. Historical prior felony statute. A.R.S. § convictions remain historical 13-105(22) conviction (2010). prior is defined by types of regardless of Certain convictions their remoteness in time from the present offense. 105(22)(a). caused A.R.S. § 13- We agree with the State s argument that because one of Morris s admitted prior convictions was for a 1992 aggravated assault with serious physical injury, it serves as a historical prior conviction, regardless of its remoteness. A.R.S. § 13- 105(22)(a)(ii); State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64, 66-67, ¶ 7, 66 P.3d 1241, 1243-44 (2003) (citing an earlier version of the statute that has now been renumbered to the current version). ¶9 As to the 1992 conviction for attempted possession of narcotic drugs, a class 3 felony, it also qualifies historical prior felony conviction under the statute. 4 as a A.R.S. § 13-105(22)(b). Both parties agree that the time Morris spent incarcerated on different charges is excludable and that the relevant time between offenses is less than ten years. Because the 1992 conviction for attempted possession of narcotic drugs was a class 3 felony, it is a historical prior felony conviction if it occurred within ten years of the present offense, not the five years that Morris argues. A.R.S. § 13-105(22)(b) (A historical prior consists of [a]ny class 2 or 3 felony . . . that was committed within the ten years immediately preceding the date of the present offense ). Therefore, it also serves as a historical prior for sentencing purposes. ¶10 Finally, applicable statute as to the provides federal that weapons Morris conviction, could have the been sentenced as a category three repetitive offender with two or more historical priors, so the trial court was not required to decide whether the federal prior should apply. 703(C). Therefore, we find no sentencing error. 5 A.R.S. § 13- CONCLUSION ¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Morris s convictions and sentences. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _____________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge /s/ _____________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 6

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.