STATE OF ARIZONA v. AUBREY LAWRENCE OWENS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. AUBREY LAWRENCE OWENS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0196 Filed July 31, 2017 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Maricopa County No. CR2016001327001DT The Honorable Bradley Astrowsky, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Paul J. Prato, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix Counsel for Appellant STATE v. OWENS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Howard1 concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Aubrey Owens was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and threatening or intimidating, all domestic violence offenses. The trial court sentenced Owens to concurrent, presumptive prison terms of 4.5 years on the assault charges, to be served concurrently with the sentences in another matter, and to time served in jail for the remaining count. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating he has “searched the record on appeal . . . [and] has found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.” He has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Owens has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that on December 31, 2014, Owens engaged in a “scuffl[e]” with his mother, during which he threatened to kill her; the mother suffered a “displaced patella fracture” requiring surgery in addition to a “nondisplaced tibial . . . fracture.” We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-707(A)(1), 131202(A)(1), (B), 13-1203, 13-1204(A)(3), (D), 13-3601. 1The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, 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. OWENS Decision of the Court ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Owens’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.