Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 12-0122
05-30-2013
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LEONARD HARRIS, JR. , Appellant.
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2011103583-001
The Honorable Cynthia Bailey, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel,
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix Maricopa County Public Defender's Office
By Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix GEMMILL, Judge ¶1 Leonard Harris, Jr., ("Harris") appeals his convictions and sentences on two counts of aggravated assault, both class four felonies. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Harris was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 "We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions." State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). ¶3 On October 29, 2010, Phoenix Police were called to the home of Mary Ann Harris ("Mary Ann") in response to a fight between her ex-husband, Harris, and her boyfriend, Edward Stultz. Harris was at the house to pick up his son for the weekend, as well as to retrieve several boxes of personal belongings. While Harris was loading boxes into his car, Stultz approached him and attempted to have a discussion about his son's behavior issues at school. Harris refused to participate in the discussion, despite Stultz's persistence. ¶4 Soon, the conversation became heated. Both Stultz and Mary Ann testified that Harris became very angry and began to yell profanities at Stultz, directing him to leave. The two men approached the house, and as they reached the front door, Stultz became worried for Mary Ann's safety. In an attempt to stop Harris from coming in the house, Stultz stepped between him and the door and told Harris that he could not enter the home. At that point, the exchange escalated into a physical altercation as Harris proceeded to hit Stultz multiple times in the face and head. Harris continued the fight until neighbors from across the street intervened. Mary Ann called 911, and the police arrived on the scene between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. ¶5 Stultz sustained severe injuries as a result of the altercation, including a severe cut under the eye, a broken nose and a subdural hematoma. He spent a week in Intensive Care at Barrow's Neurological Institute and was eventually required to undergo brain surgery in order to repair and drain the hematoma. He still suffers from headaches, memory loss, and impaired speech as a result of his injuries. Harris sustained no serious injury from the fight. ¶6 Prior to the jury trial, the State moved to admit evidence of Harris' prior arrest and guilty plea from a 2009 domestic dispute between Harris and Mary Ann. The court held a Rule 404(b) hearing in which the parties stipulated that the State had met its burden of proof by providing clear and convincing evidence that the prior acts occurred. The court agreed to admit evidence of the 2009 incident in order to prove that Harris had a history of violence with Mary Ann and that Stultz was aware of that history. The court found that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial nature and that a limiting instruction was appropriate. The jury received such a limiting instruction at trial. ¶7 On November 17, 2011, the jury found Harris guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. On February 3, 2012, the court sentenced Harris to concurrent terms of four years of supervised probation on both counts. As a condition for Count 1, Harris was also ordered to serve six months incarcerated in the county jail with no credit for time served. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 22, 2012. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes sections 13-1204 (Supp. 2012), -4031 (2010), and -4033(A)(1) (2010).
We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions material to this decision have occurred since the events in question.
DISCUSSION
¶8 Having considered defense counsel's brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The evidence presented supports the convictions and the sentences imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, Harris was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶9 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), counsel's obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Harris of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Harris has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶10 The convictions and sentences are affirmed.
______________________________
JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING: ______________________________
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge
______________________________
LAWRENCE F. WINTRHOP, Chief Judge