Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0044
07-06-2023
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Michael Vigorito, Appellant.
Bain &Lauritano PLC, Glendale By Amy E. Bain Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2019005050001DT The Honorable Dewain D. Fox, Judge
Bain & Lauritano PLC, Glendale By Amy E. Bain Counsel for Appellant
Chief Judge Vasquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Gard concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
VASQUEZ, Chief Judge:
¶ 1 After a jury trial, appellant Michael Vigorito was convicted of aggravated assault and three counts of disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is 7.5 years.
¶ 2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating she has reviewed the record and has been "unable to identify any arguable issues to raise." Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record" and has asked this court to search the record for reversible error. Vigorito has filed a supplemental brief, in which he argues his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on a justification defense, the prosecutor committed misconduct, and the state presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions.
¶ 3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the jury's verdicts, see State v. Holle, 240 Ariz. 300, ¶ 2 (2016), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-105(15), 13-1203(A)(2), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-2904(A)(6). One night in December 2018, after letting the air out of a tire on his daughter's vehicle, Vigorito got into an altercation with S.B. outside of a bar. One of his daughter's friends and the bartender tried to diffuse the situation, but Vigorito pulled out a handgun and pointed it at S.B., with his daughter, her friend, and the bartender all watching. S.B. retreated inside the bar, and Vigorito left. The sentences imposed are within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-704(A), 13-1204(E), 13-2904(B). We have reviewed the arguments Vigorito identified in his supplemental brief and have concluded none are arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Vigorito identified in his supplemental brief, and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Vigorito's convictions and sentences.