State v. Buggs ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                           NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
    LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
    v.
    WILLIE EVERETTE BUGGS, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 13-0660
    FILED 07-24-2014
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR 2012-164686-001
    The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Commissioner
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
    By Terry J. Adams
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. BUGGS
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in
    which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
    N O R R I S, Judge:
    ¶1            Willie Everette Buggs timely appeals from his conviction
    and sentence for assault, a class 1 misdemeanor. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
    (“A.R.S.”) § 13-1203(A)(1), (B) (2010). After searching the record on appeal
    and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Buggs’s
    counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967), and State v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
    , 
    451 P.2d 878
    (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental
    error. This court granted counsel’s motion to allow Buggs to file a
    supplemental brief in propria persona, but Buggs did not do so. After
    reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and therefore
    affirm Buggs’s conviction and sentence.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
    ¶2             On December 21, 2012, Buggs and his roommate, R.G., were
    drinking alcohol and playing cards when they began to argue. Both men
    were swearing and yelling at each other, and the argument escalated into
    a physical altercation. Although Buggs testified R.G. “took a swing at me”
    and he only hit R.G. with his fist four times defending himself, another
    witness testified R.G. had never attempted to hit Buggs, but rather Buggs
    had attacked R.G. and hit him with the blunt end of a box cutter as many
    as ten or 12 times. After the incident, R.G. went to the hospital and
    received staples and stitches in various parts of his head and face.
    ¶3           A grand jury indicted Buggs for felony aggravated assault
    under A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2) (Supp. 2013) (assault with a deadly weapon
    or dangerous instrument). A jury convicted Buggs of the lesser included
    offense of assault under A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1) (causing any physical
    1We   view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
    the jury’s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Buggs.
    State v. Guerra, 
    161 Ariz. 289
    , 293, 
    778 P.2d 1185
    , 1189 (1989).
    2
    STATE v. BUGGS
    Decision of the Court
    injury to another person), a misdemeanor. The superior court sentenced
    Buggs to 180 days incarceration, see A.R.S. § 13-707(A) (2010), with 180
    days presentence incarceration credit.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶4           We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and
    find none. See 
    Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300
    , 451 P.2d at 881. Buggs received a fair
    trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and
    was present at all critical stages.2
    ¶5           The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports
    the verdict. The jury was properly comprised of eight members; and the
    court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charge, Buggs’s
    presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity
    of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a
    presentence report, Buggs was given an opportunity to speak at
    sentencing and did so, and his sentence was within the range of
    acceptable sentences for his offense.
    ¶6            We note, however, that in closing argument, but without any
    objection by defense counsel, the prosecutor improperly relied on matters
    that were not introduced in evidence. First, in discussing the trial
    evidence concerning blood splattering, the prosecutor referred to “basic
    physics” even though no evidence was presented to the jury about “basic
    physics.” Second, the prosecutor argued that electricians use box cutters
    in lieu of wire strippers to strip off the first inch or so of “Romex wire.”
    Yet, no evidence was presented to the jury about using box cutters in lieu
    of wire strippers or, for that matter, “Romex wire.” Third, the prosecutor
    asserted a particular witness, who had been a friend of Buggs, gave Buggs
    “a little nod” after his testimony. No evidence was presented to the jury,
    however, about this alleged nod.
    ¶7            The prosecutor’s reliance on these matters was improper.
    See generally State v. Newell, 
    212 Ariz. 389
    , 402, ¶ 62, 
    132 P.3d 833
    , 846
    (2006) (impermissible prosecutorial vouching exists when prosecutor
    suggests information not presented to the jury supports the evidence).
    2Buggs  waived his presence at a July 11, 2013 pretrial
    hearing. At the hearing, the court entered scheduling orders for the
    submission of trial exhibits and proposed jury instructions and affirmed
    the prior custody orders and the trial date.
    3
    STATE v. BUGGS
    Decision of the Court
    Although improper, based on our review of the record, the statements did
    not amount to fundamental, prejudicial error. State v. Henderson, 
    210 Ariz. 561
    , 568-69, ¶¶ 22-26, 
    115 P.3d 601
    , 608-09 (2005).
    CONCLUSION
    ¶8            We decline to order briefing and affirm Buggs’s conviction
    and sentence.
    ¶9            After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations
    pertaining to Buggs’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense
    counsel need do no more than inform Buggs of the outcome of this appeal
    and his future options unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue
    appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
    review. State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    , 584-85, 
    684 P.2d 154
    , 156-57 (1984).
    ¶10            Buggs has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed,
    if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court’s
    own motion, we also grant Buggs 30 days from the date of this decision to
    file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.
    :gsh
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 13-0660

Filed Date: 7/24/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014