State v. Griffin

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. ) ) TIESHUMA LAMAR GRIFFIN, ) ) Appellant. ) ) ________________________________) 1 CA-CR 10-0854 DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/12/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-108966-001 DT The Honorable Glenn M. Davis, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Bruce Peterson, Legal Advocate By Thomas J. Dennis, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Tieshuma Lamar Griffin (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting conduct an Anders review of the record. afforded an opportunity to file a that this court Defendant has been supplemental propria persona, and he has not done so. brief in For the following reasons, we affirm. On February 16, 2010, defendant and L.M., 1 his then ¶2 girlfriend and the mother of their two children, began arguing about separating. for At the time, defendant had been unemployed approximately three years and had assumed parental responsibilities of his and L.M. s children, as well as L.M. s third child from a previous relationship. stopped arguing to put the children Defendant and L.M. to bed. Shortly thereafter, the argument resumed and L.H., L.M. s co-worker and friend, arrived to make sure that L.M. was alright. Defendant then produced a revolver from his bedroom. L.H. refused to leave at L.M. s request, defendant After went outside to speak with L.H. himself, and L.M. went back into the apartment. 2 1 We use the initials of the victims names to protect their privacy. See State v. Maldonado, 206 Ariz. 339, 341 n. 1, 78 P.3d 1060, 1062 n. 1 (App. 2003). 2 The state named L.H. as a victim, alleging that defendant committed aggravated assault against her. 2 ¶3 argue Defendant reentered the apartment and continued to with L.M. in the closet of the master bedroom. Defendant pointed the gun at his own head, threatening to harm himself, and then pointed the gun at L.M. and asked her to give him a reason why he shouldn t shoot [her]. L.M. reminded defendant that she was the mother of their children and walked away. L.M. testified that she was afraid defendant would shoot her. Defendant then followed L.M. out of the apartment and threw an object at a large wall mirror, breaking the mirror, and swiped several picture frames, candles, and a wine glass off of a counter, breaking them as well. L.M. then left the apartment with the children. ¶4 police While this transpired, L.H. flagged down a passing cruiser and informed the officer of the situation. After defendant ignored the officer s commands to surrender, the officer radioed for backup, and a SWAT team was dispatched to the scene. Defendant surrendered after the SWAT team broke the apartment s glass arcadia door with a rubber bullet. ¶5 Defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, class aggravated three assault dangerous charge was felonies. alleged As to to be L.M., a the domestic violence offense. Defendant was also charged with one count of threatening or intimidating, a class one misdemeanor and a domestic violence offense, and one count of criminal damage, a 3 class two misdemeanor and a domestic violence offense. A jury acquitted defendant on the aggravated assault charge against L.H., but convicted defendant on the three remaining counts. The jury found, as an aggravating factor, that the offense(s) involved the infliction or the threatened infliction of serious physical injury. 3 ¶6 The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in prison for the aggravated assault count and credited defendant with 225 days of presentence incarceration credit. counts three criminal and four, damage, threatening respectively, and defendant As to intimidating was sentenced and to incarceration in jail for 180 days and received 180 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶7 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. proceedings were conducted in Rules of Criminal Procedure. We find none. compliance with See Leon, All of the the Arizona So far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 582, 584-85, 684 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. P.2d 154, 3 156-57 (1984), defendant s The state alleged two other aggravating factors that the jury rejected. 4 counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶8 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ _________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, 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.