STATE v. STAMPLEY

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. NATHAN R. STAMPLEY, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/17/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 11-0741 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County Cause No. CRS1400CR201001474 The Honorable Andrew W. Gould, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Michael A. Breeze, Yuma County Public Defender by Edward F. McGee, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix Yuma P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 This is 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 Defendant Nathan R. Stampley 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 us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. FACTS 1 ¶2 Yuma police officers responded violence call on November 20, 2010. to a 9-1-1 domestic Defendant went outside with an officer, and admitted that he had pinned the victim to the ground and had bitten her advised of his Miranda 2 face. rights. He was Defendant then was arrested and subsequently charged with domestic violence aggravated assault, a class 6 felony, and attempted second degree murder, a class 2 felony. ¶3 Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements he had made to the police prior to his arrest. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing, and heard from Defendant and the officer. After the hearing, the court concluded that the statements were voluntary and denied Defendant s motion. ¶4 The jury heard competing versions of the events of November 20, 2010. The victim, Defendant s wife, testified that 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989) (citation omitted). 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 Defendant had accused her of having an affair, threw her onto the floor, and bit her cheek. After he let her up, he knocked her down a second time and squeezed her neck with his hands so hard that she thought she was going to die. Defendant denied that he had tried to harm or kill his wife, but admitted that he had bitten her cheek. ¶5 After receiving final instructions and hearing closing arguments, the jury found Defendant guilty of the domestic violence aggravated assault but not guilty of attempted murder. He was subsequently placed on intensive supervised probation for thirty-six months, which included special mental health and pursuant to domestic violence terms. ¶6 We have jurisdiction over this appeal Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (West 2012). DISCUSSION ¶7 We have read and considered counsel s brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. The record, as presented, reveals that all of the proceedings were conducted in compliance Defendant with was the Arizona represented by Rules counsel 3 of at Criminal all Procedure. stages of the proceedings and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶8 Accordingly, sentence. we affirm Defendant s conviction and After this decision is filed, counsel s obligation to represent Defendant in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and Defendant s future options, unless counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission review. 157 to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d 154, (1984). Defendant may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge /s/ _________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Chief 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.