Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0124
10-30-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOHN ALLEN BACOCCINI, Appellant.
COUNSEL The Hopkins Law Office, P.C., Tucson By Cedric Martin Hopkins 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20160953001
The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
The Hopkins Law Office, P.C., Tucson
By Cedric Martin Hopkins
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Eppich and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
STARING, Presiding Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, John Bacoccini was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument and was sentenced to a five-year prison term. 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 he has reviewed the record but found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he 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. Bacoccini has filed a supplemental brief stating he "believe[s] the speedy trial date" had passed at the time of trial and claiming he "had no intent[ion] o[f] using the [k]nife" and is "not guilty."
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict here. In February 2016, Bacoccini visited a bar and, at one point, yelled, "Does anybody know where I can get some crystal meth?" After the victim, a bartender, told him to leave, Bacoccini advanced on her while holding a large knife; the victim testified she was afraid he was going to "use the knife on [her]." And, with regards to Bacoccini's claim he did not intend to harm the victim, the jury was not required to find he had intended actual physical harm, only that he intentionally placed the victim in "reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury." A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(2). His sentence is within the statutory range and was lawfully imposed. A.R.S. §§ 13-105(13), 13-704(A), 13-1204(E).
¶3 In his supplemental brief, Bacoccini suggests the "speedy trial date" had passed before his trial. We find no indication that the time limits of Rule 8, Ariz. R. Crim. P., were violated. Although Bacoccini's trial occurred almost a year after his arraignment, nearly all the delay was occasioned by him. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.2, 8.4, 8.5. Nor was there any violation of his constitutional speedy trial right—not only did Bacoccini cause the bulk of the delay, there is nothing in the record suggesting he was prejudiced. See State v. Zuck, 134 Ariz. 509, 514-15, 658 P.2d 162, 167-68 (1982).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Bacoccini's conviction and sentence.