STATE OF ARIZONA v. WALTER DONTE CAMPBELL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. WALTER DONTE CAMPBELL, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0477 Filed August 31, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20151024001 The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Steven R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By Frank P. Leto, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CAMPBELL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Walter Campbell was convicted of misconduct involving weapons, specifically, possession of a firearm by a prohibited possessor. Upon finding Campbell had one historical prior felony conviction, the trial court sentenced him to a 4.5-year prison term. ¶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 he 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, he 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. Campbell has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports it here. During a February 2015 search of Campbell’s apartment, a pistol was found in his bedroom; the parties stipulated that he previously had been convicted of a felony and that his right to possess firearms had not been restored. A.R.S. §§ 13-3101(A)(1), (A)(7)(b); 133102(A)(4). And the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Campbell had one historical prior felony conviction. His sentence is within the statutory range and was properly imposed. A.R.S. §§ 13703(B), (I); 13-3102(M). 2 STATE v. CAMPBELL 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). Accordingly, Campbell’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 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.