STATE OF ARIZONA v. RICHARD LIN GARRISON
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 FILED BY CLERK NOV 22 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RICHARD LIN GARRISON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0006 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR051322 Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge Honorable Leslie Miller, Judge AFFIRMED Emily Danies H O W A R D, Chief Judge.ï ï ï ï Tucson Attorney for Appellant ¶1 In March 1996, an eight-member jury found appellant Richard Garrison guilty of aggravated assault, a dangerous-nature offense. Garrison had absconded before trial but surrendered in 2009 after being served with a warrant in Virginia. The trial court sentenced him to a five-year, mitigated prison term. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing she has reviewed the entire record and found no arguably meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, she has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, and asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Based on counsel s recitation and the record itself, the evidence established that F. and Garrison were in their vehicles and had engaged in a verbal altercation when Garrison pointed a handgun at F., from a distance of two- to four-feet away, and said, What do you think about this[?] or similar words.ï ¶3 We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements necessary for Garrison s convictions. See A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A),1 13-1203(A)(2), 131204(A)(2). In addition, Garrison s sentences were within the range authorized and were 1 The Arizona criminal sentencing code has been renumbered, effective from and after December 31, 2008. See 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 301, §§ 1-120. For ease of reference and because no changes in the statutes are material to the issues in this case,ï see id. § 119, we refer in this decision to the current section numbers rather than those in effect when Garrison committed this offense. 2 imposed in a lawful manner. See § 13-704(A). In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no fundamental or reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Garrison s conviction and sentence.ï ï /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 3
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.
