STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANGELO ALEXANDER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGELO ALEXANDER, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0454 Filed September 18, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20140345001 The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC, Tucson By Anne Elsberry Counsel for Appellant STATE v. ALEXANDER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly1 concurred. H O W A R D, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Angelo Alexander was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and weapons misconduct—possession of a firearm by a prohibited possessor. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longer of which was 7.5 years. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record” and asks this court to search the record for error. Alexander has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdicts here. In January 2014, Alexander—who had been convicted of a felony in California—shot the victim several times in the leg with a handgun. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1204(A)(2); 13-3102(A)(4). Sufficient evidence also supported the trial court’s finding that Alexander had a prior felony conviction. And his sentences are within the statutory limits and were imposed properly. A.R.S. §§ 13703(I); 13-704(A); 13-1204(D); 13-3102(M). 1The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. 2 STATE v. ALEXANDER Decision of the Court ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Alexander’s convictions and sentences. 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.