Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0077
08-09-2023
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Ernest Rushing III, Appellant.
Maricopa County Public Defender By Jesse Finn Turner, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2021104480001DT The Honorable Frank W. Moskowitz, Judge
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Public Defender By Jesse Finn Turner, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix Counsel for Appellant
Judge Gard authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vasquez and Presiding Judge Eppich concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
GARD, JUDGE
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Ernest Rushing III was convicted of prisoner assault with bodily fluids. The trial court sentenced him to a 2.75-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 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Rushing has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt, see A.R.S. § 13-1212(A), (E). The evidence presented at trial showed that Rushing, who had more than two historical prior felony convictions and was an inmate in a correctional facility, spit in the face of a correctional officer who was escorting him. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J); 13-1212(D).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Rushing's conviction and sentence.