State v. Harper
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.
DAVID JASON HARPER,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DIVISION ONE
FILED: 09/22/2011
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
CLERK
BY: DLL
No. 1 CA-CR 10-0923
DEPARTMENT A
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2009-148071-001 DT
The Honorable Janet E. Barton, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By
Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel
Criminal Appeals Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
By
Thomas Baird, Deputy Public Defender
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
(defendant)
has
878
(1969).
advised
us
Counsel
that,
for
after
David
Jason
searching
the
Harper
entire
record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of
law
and
has
filed
a
brief
requesting
Anders review of the record.
this
court
conduct
an
Defendant has been afforded an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and
he has not done so.
¶2
Around 7 a.m. on July 17, 2009, defendant’s estranged
wife called 911 to request assistance removing defendant from
the house.
Shortly after, an officer arrived in a marked police
vehicle wearing a police uniform.
The officer and defendant’s
wife found defendant in the master bedroom.
that he had a knife.
Defendant stated
Defendant then took a kitchen knife out of
his pocket and held it up in the air while approaching the
officer.
The
officer
drew
his
weapon
and
hallway asking defendant to drop the knife.
defendant would rush him.
backed
down
the
The officer feared
Defendant stopped about ten feet from
the officer, still holding the knife.
¶3
While the officer and defendant faced each other, the
officer radioed for backup to arrive quickly.
minutes, defendant put the knife down.
after two more officers arrived.
2
After about four
Defendant surrendered
¶4
During the confrontation, defendant’s wife exited to a
different
room
to
comfort
her
children.
Defendant’s
wife
confirmed to an officer that her peace had been disturbed.
¶5
Defendant
was
charged
with
one
count
of
aggravated
assault of a police officer, a class 2 dangerous felony, one
count of disorderly conduct, a class 6 dangerous felony and a
domestic
violence
offense,
and
one
count
of
first
degree
criminal trespass, a class 6 felony, also a domestic violence
offense.
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one
count of aggravated assault, a class 2 dangerous felony, and one
count of disorderly conduct,
domestic violence offense.
to
concurrent
sentences
a class 6
dangerous felony and
The trial court sentenced defendant
of
10.5
years
in
prison
for
the
aggravated assault conviction and 2.25 years in prison for the
disorderly conduct conviction.
Defendant received 100 days of
presentence incarceration credit.
Defendant appealed after the
trial court allowed him to file a delayed notice of appeal.
¶6
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.
We find none.
See Leon, 104
All of the
proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules
of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the
statutory limits.
Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
3
584-85,
684
P.2d
154,
156-57
(1984),
defendant’s
counsel’s
obligations in this appeal are at an end.
¶7
We affirm the convictions and sentences.
/s/
___________________________
JON W. THOMPSON, Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/
___________________________________
DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge
/s/
___________________________________
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, 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.
