STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSHUA ROBERT SEAGO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSHUA ROBERT SEAGO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0164 Filed August 20, 2020 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Cochise County No. S0200CR201800869 The Honorable Timothy Dickerson, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Cochise County Office of the Legal Advocate, Bisbee By Xochitl Orozco Counsel for Appellant STATE v. SEAGO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred. B R E A R C L I F F E, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, Joshua Seago was convicted of aggravated assault causing temporary but substantial impairment, a domestic violence offense.1 The state proved Seago had two historic prior felony convictions and the trial court sentenced him to the maximum, enhanced twelve-year prison term.2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating she has reviewed the record but found no “arguable question of law that is not frivolous” to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked this court to review the record for reversible error. Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32 (App. 1999), she has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record.” Seago has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1), 13-1204(A)(3), 13-3601. On September 13, 2018, Seago punched M., his “on again, off again” girlfriend, causing her to fall “back into the shower.” As a result of Seago hitting her, M. suffered “bleeding on the brain,” and testified at trial that she still struggles with memory issues and has difficulty with her writing skills; in addition, M.’s eye became swollen and discolored; she developed a red welt on her forehead; and, she had bruises inside her bicep and on her outer thigh. 1 The jury acquitted Seago of kidnapping and another count of aggravated assault, also domestic violence offenses. 2Although the trial court called the sentence “slightly aggravated,” according to the applicable statute, it is the “maximum sentence.” See A.R.S. § 13-703(J). 2 STATE v. SEAGO Decision of the Court ¶3 Sufficient evidence also supports the trial court’s finding that Seago had two historical prior felony convictions, and its consideration as aggravating factors that he previously had been convicted of assault against M. and that the jury had found M. suffered emotional or physical harm as a result of the instant assault. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(22)(c), 13-701(D)(9), (27). And, Seago’s sentence is within the statutory range and was lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Seago’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.
