Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0838
07-22-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BRIAN WARD BEASLEY, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix By Cynthia D. Beck Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2013-109285-001
The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Cynthia D. Beck
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. NORRIS, Judge:
¶1 Brian Ward Beasley timely appeals from his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault, a class 3 felony. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 13-1204(A)(2), (D) (Supp. 2013). After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Beasley's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. This court granted counsel's motion to allow Beasley to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Beasley did not do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and therefore affirm Beasley's conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Beasley. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989).
¶2 On December 23, 2012, a Phoenix Fire Department ambulance was in the process of transporting Beasley to a hospital because he was suffering from abdominal pain. An emergency medical technician, B.P., was riding in the back of the ambulance with Beasley. Beasley asked B.P. for his backpack and became agitated when B.P. did not give it to him. According to B.P., he asked Beasley if he had anything dangerous in his backpack, and Beasley responded, "yes, but you're not going to find it." At that point, B.P. looked up and Beasley had removed a folding knife from his pocket, had it open, and made a stabbing motion, three or four times about a foot or two from B.P.'s face in an effort to stab B.P.
¶3 A jury convicted Beasley of aggravated assault under A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2) (assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument). The superior court sentenced Beasley to the minimum term of imprisonment of five years, see A.R.S. § 13-704(A) (Supp. 2013), with 251 days presentence incarceration credit.
DISCUSSION
¶4 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Beasley received a fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages.
Beasley was not present at the August 15, 2013 Final Trial Management Conference. The record does not explain Beasley's absence. Based on our review of the record, Beasley was not prejudiced by not being present during that hearing.
--------
¶5 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict. The jury was properly comprised of eight members, and the court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charge, Beasley's presumption of innocence, the State's burden of proof, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a presentence report, Beasley was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing and did so, and his sentence was within the range of acceptable sentences for his offense.
CONCLUSION
¶6 We decline to order briefing and affirm Beasley's conviction and sentence. ¶7 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Beasley's representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Beasley of the outcome of this appeal and his future options unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984).
¶8 Beasley has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court's own motion, we also grant Beasley 30 days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.