Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0244
08-14-2020
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SCOTT LEE BAUCOM, Appellant.
COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pima County
No. CR20171306001
The Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge
AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED
COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender
By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Eppich concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Chief Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, Scott Baucom was convicted of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, theft of a means of transportation, and credit card theft. The trial court imposed a natural life term of imprisonment for the murder conviction, to be served concurrently with prison terms for the other offenses.
¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record but found no "arguably meritorious issue" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked this court to review the record for fundamental, reversible error. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, he has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record." Baucom has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Baucom asserted a defense of guilty except insane. See A.R.S. § 13-502(A), (C). 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 findings of guilt. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1105(A)(2), 13-1814(A)(1), 13-1902, 13-1904, and 13-2102(A)(1). On March 13, 2017, paramedics found the victim, M., who was a quadriplegic, in his bed with a pillow over his head and fifteen stab wounds to his chest and neck, likely caused by a knife. Baucom, who used to work as a live-in caregiver for M., knew the code to the lockbox at M.'s home. M.'s neighbor testified that earlier that morning Baucom had told him M. owed him money, M.'s van belonged to him, and he was "going to kill" M. On March 14, police officers located M.'s missing van in a parking lot and found Baucom in a nearby bar/restaurant. Officers found the following items inside the van: a knife with blood on the blade matching M.'s DNA and blood on the handle matching Baucom's DNA; M.'s checkbook ; a police citation and trespassing notice from a store that had been issued to Baucom on March 13; and an ice chest and beer, along with a receipt from a convenience store dated March 14 for the purchase of those items. On Baucom's person, officers found multiple credit cards belonging to M. The evidence also supports the jury's findings of aggravating factors, and the sentences are within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-704(A), and 13-752(A).
Both the state and Baucom presented extensive expert testimony on this topic at trial, in addition to evidence of Baucom's conduct both before and after the offenses occurred. The defense expert opined Baucom was guilty except insane when he committed the charged offenses, and although the state's expert concluded Baucom had mental health issues, he opined Baucom was not guilty except insane at that time. The jury found Baucom "Guilty" on all counts; the jury was provided with the choices of "Not Guilty," "Guilty," or "Guilty Except Insane" on each verdict form.
In addition, blood found on Baucom's right hand matched his own and M.'s DNA.
M. normally kept his car keys, checkbook and wallet with his credit cards on his kitchen table.
Video surveillance from the convenience store showed Baucom purchasing the items. --------
¶4 In our review of the record pursuant to Anders, we noted that, although the trial court stated at sentencing that the sentences for the other offenses would run concurrently with the natural life sentence for murder, the written judgment is silent in this regard, instead only providing that the other sentences would run concurrently with each other. We thus correct the sentencing order to show that all of the sentences are concurrent with each other, as reflected in the sentencing transcript. See State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, ¶ 38 (2013) (discrepancy between oral pronouncement of sentence and written minute entry generally controlled by oral pronouncement and reviewing court will correct minute entry if record clearly identifies intended sentence). We additionally note that, although the sentencing order correctly reflects March 13, 2017, as the date of the offenses, the court mistakenly stated at the sentencing hearing that the offenses had been committed on March 14, 2017.
¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Baucom's convictions and sentences, but correct the sentencing order to reflect that all the sentences are concurrent.