Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0264
05-02-2019
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DALEXANDER DONTA STEWART, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix By Jesse Finn Turner Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-136412-001
The Honorable Susanna Pineda, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix
By Jesse Finn Turner
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
PERKINS, Judge:
¶1 Dalexander Stewart appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault, assault, and disorderly conduct. After searching the entire record, Stewart's counsel identified no arguable, non-frivolous questions of law and requested this Court search the record for fundamental error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Stewart was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but chose not to. We have reviewed the record and briefs and found no reversible error. Accordingly, Stewart's convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against" Stewart. State v. Burgess, 245 Ariz. 275, 277, ¶ 3 (App. 2018). In early August 2017 Stewart and his stepson, Victim, began fighting outside Stewart's apartment. Stewart's wife, who was present during the fight, called the police and told the dispatcher that Stewart was fighting with Victim and had threatened to kill the family. Officers arrived at the apartment complex and found Stewart "bent over . . . holding [Victim] down on the ground." The officers separated Stewart and Victim and, while the officers were frisking Victim, Stewart ran into the apartment and locked the door. Stewart refused to leave the apartment and the officers called a special unit to negotiate with him. During this time, some of the residents in the surrounding units of the apartment complex were evacuated and kept away from Stewart's apartment. After several hours, police officers deployed gas grenades to force Stewart from the apartment, at which point they took him into custody.
¶3 The grand jury indicted Stewart on one count of aggravated assault, one count of assault, and one count of disorderly conduct. Stewart waived his right to a jury trial and a bench trial was held in March 2018. At trial, the court heard testimony from several police officers and from Stewart's wife, who given had a recorded interview with a detective after the incident. The officers testified that they found Stewart fighting with
Victim in August 2017, that he and Victim had several injuries, and that Stewart barricaded himself in his apartment until police deployed gas grenades to get him to exit.
¶4 Stewart's wife initially testified that she did not recall calling the police, that Victim was drunk on the day of the incident, and that she did not witness the altercation between Victim and Stewart. The trial court admitted audio recordings of both the 911 call and the police interview, and Stewart's wife conceded she called the police but testified that Victim's girlfriend told her to make the call and told her what to say. During the 911 call, Stewart's wife made no mention of Victim's girlfriend and told the dispatcher that Stewart was fighting with and choking Victim. Stewart's wife contradicted the details of the interview and, when confronted with a recording of it, testified she did not recognize the voice on the tape. The detective, however, verified that the recording offered at trial was an accurate record of his interview with Stewart's wife.
¶5 The trial court, after considering the testimony and evidence presented, found Stewart guilty as charged. The court sentenced Stewart to concurrent terms of supervised probation, the longest of which was two years.
DISCUSSION
¶6 Our review reveals no reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300-01 (describing our Anders review process).
¶7 The record reveals sufficient evidence upon which the court could determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Stewart is guilty of the charged offenses. The record further reflects that all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, that Stewart was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and was himself present at all critical stages including the entire trial, verdict, and sentencing. See State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical stages). Stewart knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial after being advised of those rights by the court. At sentencing, Stewart had the opportunity to speak on his behalf and the court stated, on the record, the factors it considered in imposing the sentences. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-701 to -709.
CONCLUSION
¶8 This Court has read and considered counsel's brief, searched the record provided for reversible error, and has found no arguable issue. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 538, ¶ 36 (App. 1999) (in an Anders appeal, "the court itself reviews the record for reversible error"). Accordingly, Stewart's convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.
¶9 Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to inform Stewart of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Stewart shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.