Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0059
05-22-2020
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BRYAN LEE LESTER, Appellant.
COUNSEL Law Offices of Erin E. Duffy P.L.L.C., Tucson By Erin E. Duffy 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20173449001
The Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED
COUNSEL Law Offices of Erin E. Duffy P.L.L.C., Tucson
By Erin E. Duffy
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Bryan Lester was convicted of aggravated assault and assault—both domestic-violence offenses—and burglary. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent eight-year terms of imprisonment for aggravated assault and burglary, and to time served for assault. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating that she has reviewed the record but "has been unable to find any arguably meritorious issues to raise." Counsel has asked this court to review the record for fundamental error. Lester has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, see State v. Miles, 211 Ariz. 475, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1), 13-1204(B), 13-1507(A), 13-3601(A). Early one morning in July 2017, Lester entered the home of C.V., his daughter's mother, who had obtained an order of protection prohibiting Lester from contacting her or entering the home. Inside, the two argued, and when C.V. locked herself in the bedroom, Lester kicked down the door, repeatedly hit her in the head and face, and then dragged her by the hair to the living room, where he "put[] his hands on [her] neck," held her down, and covered her nose and mouth with a blanket. C.V. felt "dizzy and lightheaded" and was "gasping" for air, but she managed to get away, sustaining two black eyes, multiple bruises, and scratches.
¶3 The evidence also establishes that Lester had at least two historical prior felony convictions. The sentences imposed are within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-707(A)(1), 13-1203(B), 13-1204(E), 13-1507(B).
The transcript from the prior convictions hearing was not part of our record. Accordingly, we ordered the hearing transcribed before completing our review pursuant to Anders. --------
¶4 In the course of our review, however, we noticed that the sentencing minute entry indicates the aggravated assault and burglary convictions are "non-repetitive" offenses and the assault conviction is a "non-dangerous, non-repetitive offense." This is contrary to the trial court's oral pronouncement, characterizing the aggravated assault and burglary convictions as "repetitive" offenses and the assault conviction as a "Class 1 misdemeanor," not labeled non-dangerous or non-repetitive. The court's oral pronouncement is consistent with the sentences imposed. Although we generally "will not correct an error 'that inures to the detriment of a criminal defendant,'" State v. Smith, 171 Ariz. 501, 505 (App. 1992) (quoting State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 286 (1990)), when, as here, the oral pronouncement clearly reflects the court's intent and the record, we correct the sentencing minute entry to be consistent therewith, see State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, ¶ 38 (2013). Accordingly, we correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect that the aggravated assault and burglary convictions are repetitive offenses, and that the assault conviction is a class one misdemeanor with no other designation.
¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. Lester's convictions and sentences, as corrected, are therefore affirmed.