Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0008
06-29-2012
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JASON ANTHONY YANCEY, Appellant.
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Kristine Maish Tucson Attorneys for 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Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20101884001
Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Kristine Maish
Tucson
Attorneys for Appellant
HOWARD, Chief Judge.
¶1 Appellant Jason Anthony Yancey was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated assault and attempted first degree murder, both dangerous offenses. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 10.5 years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no "meritorious issue to appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Yancey has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that, in May 2010, Yancey repeatedly kicked the victim for an extended period of time, causing life-threatening injuries. A.R.S. §§ 13-105(13), (39); 13-1001(A); 13-1105(A)(1); 13-1203(A)(1); 13-1204(A)(1).
This section was amended after Yancey's offenses, but because the relevant portions have not changed, we cite the current version. 2011 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 90, § 1, ch. 114, § 1.
¶3 Counsel suggests that imposition of presumptive prison terms was "excessive" given Yancey's mental illness and drug addiction. As long as a sentence is within the permissible statutory limits, we will not modify or reduce it unless it is clearly excessive. See State v. Gillies, 142 Ariz. 564, 573, 691 P.2d 655, 664 (1984). We find no basis in the record to conclude Yancey's sentences were clearly excessive. See generally State v. Patton, 120 Ariz. 386, 388, 586 P.2d 635, 637 (1978) (appropriate sentence within statutory range rests in trial court's discretion; abuse of discretion characterized by arbitrariness, capriciousness, or failure to conduct adequate investigation into necessary facts). Yancey's sentences were within the prescribed statutory range and were imposed lawfully. A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A); 13-1001(C); 13-1105(D); 13-1204(D).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Yancey's convictions and sentences.
_________________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
CONCURRING:
_________________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge
_________________
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge