STATE OF ARIZONA v. TYLER JAMES BONDY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TYLER JAMES BONDY, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0308 Filed October 11, 2018 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201600628 The Honorable Jason Holmberg, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel By Amy Pignatella Cain, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Michael Villareal, Florence Counsel for Appellant STATE v. BONDY Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Brearcliffe and Judge Vásquez concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Tyler Bondy appeals from his conviction of first-degree murder. His sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and, thus, the trial court “should have directed a verdict of acquittal.” We affirm. ¶2 Bondy, a prison inmate, strangled his cellmate to death in July 2015. A forensic pathologist testified strangulation took at least a minute, the victim had numerous scrapes and bruises on his face, neck and body, and his hyoid bone was broken, which would have required “specific pressure pretty deep in the neck.” After a jury trial, Bondy was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to natural life in prison. ¶3 We review de novo the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal made pursuant to Rule 20, Ariz. R. Crim. P. State v. Gray, 231 Ariz. 374, ¶ 2 (App. 2013). In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all inferences against the defendant. State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, ¶ 87 (2004). A trial court “must enter a judgment of acquittal . . . if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a). “Substantial evidence is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Sharma, 216 Ariz. 292, ¶ 7 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990)). Evidence is substantial if reasonable people could fairly disagree whether it establishes a fact in issue. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, ¶ 87. Substantial evidence may be direct or circumstantial. State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, ¶ 7 (App. 2005). ¶4 “‘Premeditation’ means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of time to permit reflection.” A.R.S. § 13-1101(1). “Proof of actual reflection is not 2 STATE v. BONDY Decision of the Court required.” Id. However, premeditation “and the reflection that it requires . . . mean more than the mere passage of time.” State v. Thompson, 204 Ariz. 471, ¶ 27 (2003). ¶5 Bondy argues “[t]he only evidence that could conceivably connect [him] to the element of premeditation” was the pathologist’s testimony, which he characterizes as “unreasonable, inconsistent and inherently improbable to a degree that makes it incredible to the ordinary man.” But the pathologist’s testimony included ample evidence from which a jury could conclude that Bondy had acted with premeditation when murdering his cellmate. The length of time pressure had to be applied to the victim’s neck for death to occur would permit a reasonable jury to conclude Bondy had reflected on his decision to murder the victim. See State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, ¶ 70 (2006) (evidence suffocation takes several minutes indicative of premeditation); Thompson, 204 Ariz. 471, ¶ 31 (noting “passage of time is but one factor that can show that the defendant actually reflected”); State v. VanWinkle, 230 Ariz. 387, ¶ 16 (2012) (“prolonged, brutal attack” including strangulation evidence of premeditation). And Bondy has identified no inconsistency in the pathologist’s testimony or explained his belief that her testimony was “unreasonable” or “improbable.” Nor has he cited any authority suggesting the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude his offense was premeditated. State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) (insufficient argument on appeal waives claim). ¶6 We affirm Bondy’s conviction and sentence. 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.
