Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0454
09-18-2015
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANGELO ALEXANDER, Appellant.
COUNSEL West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC, Tucson By Anne Elsberry 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.24.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20140345001
The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC, Tucson
By Anne Elsberry
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly concurred. HOWARD, Judge:
The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, 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. --------
¶1 After a jury trial, Angelo Alexander was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and weapons misconduct—possession of a firearm by a prohibited possessor. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longer of which was 7.5 years.
¶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 she 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, she 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. Alexander has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdicts here. In January 2014, Alexander—who had been convicted of a felony in California—shot the victim several times in the leg with a handgun. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1204(A)(2); 13-3102(A)(4). Sufficient evidence also supported the trial court's finding that Alexander had a prior felony conviction. And his sentences are within the statutory limits and were imposed properly. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(I); 13-704(A); 13-1204(D); 13-3102(M).
¶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) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Alexander's convictions and sentences.