State v. Fryson

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

GERMAINE H. FRYSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0595
FILED 11-21-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2023-121645-001
The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Brown & Little, PLC, Chandler
By Matthew O. Brown
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. FRYSON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Germaine H. Fryson (“Fryson”) appeals his convictions and
sentences for aggravated assault and endangerment. Fryson’s counsel filed
an opening brief stating that he diligently reviewed the record and found
no arguable, non-frivolous questions of law. Fryson’s counsel asked this
court to conduct an Anders review of the record. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Fryson had an opportunity to submit a supplemental
brief but did not. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
We therefore affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In May 2023, a light rail operator (“the operator”) was
operating a train approaching a light rail stop in Phoenix. He observed a
male with ripped clothing and exposed red underwear, later identified as
Fryson, standing closely behind Ben, who was near the track and
apparently waiting to cross the street.1 Fryson kept glancing between the
incoming train and Ben, which made the operator suspicious; he began to
slow the train down as it approached the stop.

¶3 Fryson then pushed Ben onto the light rail track, causing the
operator to immediately deploy the maximum break, and narrowly avoid
hitting Ben. Fryson fled the scene. Ben sustained injuries, including
scratches and abrasions on his hip and arm.

¶4 The police quickly located Fryson based on his physical
description matching that of the suspect, and Ben identified him as the
person who pushed him in front of the train.

¶5 A grand jury indicted Fryson on one count each of aggravated
assault and endangerment (both dangerous offenses), as well as criminal

1 We use a pseudonym to protect the victim’s identity. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.
111(i).

2
 STATE v. FRYSON
Decision of the Court

trespass and refusing to provide a truthful name when lawfully detained;
the latter two counts were dismissed prior to trial.

¶6 At trial, the jury heard the operator testify that Fryson pushed
Ben in front of the incoming train, and watched camera footage showing
Fryson push Ben onto the track as the train approached. The jury convicted
Fryson of aggravated assault and endangerment. It also found the State
proved each count was a dangerous offense, and that he committed the
offenses while on felony probation. The superior court found several
mitigating factors: Fryson’s history of mental illness, substance abuse, and
a limited felony record. In aggravation, the court found physical,
emotional, and financial harm to the victim. The court imposed
presumptive, concurrent sentences of 7.5 years for the aggravated assault
conviction and 2.25 years for the endangerment conviction, with 517 days
of presentence incarceration credit.2

DISCUSSION

¶7 We have considered counsel’s brief and reviewed the entire
record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App.
1999) (providing guidelines for briefs when counsel has determined no
arguable issues on appeal). We find none.

¶8 The record contains sufficient evidence to support Fryson’s
convictions and sentences. The record reflects that Fryson was present and
represented by counsel for all critical stages of the proceedings, or
voluntarily waived his right to be present. All proceedings complied with
the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Fryson’s sentences are within
the permissible statutory ranges.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm Fryson’s convictions and sentences. Upon the
filing of this decision, Fryson’s counsel shall inform him of the status of his
appeal and his future options. Defense counsel has no further obligations
unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to
the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140
Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Fryson has 30 days from the date of this decision

2 At Fryson’s sentencing hearing, the court also revoked his probation in a

separate case, CR2023-104620-001, and imposed a one-year sentence
consecutive to the sentences imposed in this case.

3
 STATE v. FRYSON
Decision of the Court

to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition
for review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3(a), 31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4