State v. Bradley

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TREVOR BRENT BRADLEY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0138
FILED 5-19-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2018-125218-001
The Honorable Annielaurie Van Wie, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek
Counsel for Appellee

DuMond & Doran, PLLC, Phoenix
By Samantha Kelli DuMond
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. BRADLEY
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Trevor Brent Bradley appeals his sentences for five felony
counts of aggravated domestic violence. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Bradley was arrested for aggravated assault on January 22,
2018, charged as a dangerous felony offense in CR2018-103980 (the
“January 2018 Charge”). He pled not guilty, posted a $10,000 bond and was
released on January 24.

¶3 Less than four months later, Bradley was arrested for beating
his girlfriend while on release and pending trial on the January 2018
Charge. On May 25, 2018, Bradley was charged with six more dangerous
felony offenses arising from the most recent incident in CR2018-125218 (the
“May 2018 Charges”), including five counts of aggravated domestic
violence and one count of attempted aggravated assault. For sentencing
enhancement purposes under A.R.S. § 13-708(D), the State alleged that
Bradley committed the new offenses on felony release for the January 2018
Charge. Bradley pled not guilty.

¶4 A jury was empaneled in November 2018 to hear the May
2018 Charges. The jury convicted Bradley on five counts of aggravated
domestic violence but acquitted him on the attempted aggravated assault
count. To prove the alleged sentencing enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-
708(D), the State introduced various documents from the January 2018
Charge, including Bradley’s booking photo, release order and indictment.
Bradley introduced no evidence or testimony in the enhancement phase,
but generally argued the State had not proven he committed the May 2018
Charges while on release for the January 2018 Charge. The jury found the
grounds for enhancement.

¶5 The court denied Bradley’s motion to set aside the
enhancement under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20(b)(1),
concluding that the booking photo, release order and indictment amounted

2
 STATE v. BRADLEY
Decision of the Court

to substantial evidence of Bradley’s felony release status. The court
sentenced Bradley to five concurrent eight-year prison terms for the
aggravated domestic violence convictions; each sentence included a two-
year enhancement under A.R.S. § 13–708(D) based on the jury’s finding that
Bradley committed the offenses while on felony release.

¶6 Bradley timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article
6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-
4031 and -4033(A)(3).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Bradley argues the State failed to prove he was on felony
release when arrested for the May 2018 Charges. Section 13-708(D) directs
the superior court to add “a term of imprisonment two years longer than
would otherwise be imposed” on a defendant “who is convicted of
committing any felony offense” while “released on bond . . . for a separate
felony offense.” A jury must find the defendant’s “release status” beyond
a reasonable doubt. State v. Large, 234 Ariz. 274, 279, ¶ 12 (App. 2014). The
defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by moving for
judgment of an unproven sentencing enhancement. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
20(b)(1).

¶8 We review de novo the denial of a Rule 20 motion, State v.
Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 461, ¶ 168 (2016), upholding the enhancement if
substantial evidence supports it, State v. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56, 67-68, ¶ 52
(2007). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof
that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support
[the jury’s] conclusion.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990) (quoting
State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419 (1980)).

¶9 Because substantial evidence supports the enhancement, we
find no error. A rational juror could find the enhancement based on the
January 2018 booking photo, release order and indictment. See Mathers, 165
Ariz. at 66 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (“[T]he
relevant question is whether . . . any rational trier of fact could have found
[the aggravator] beyond a reasonable doubt.”). We will not reweigh the
evidence on appeal, State v. Montes Flores, 245 Ariz. 303, 308, ¶ 23 (App.
2018), which can include circumstantial evidence, State v. Landrigan, 176
Ariz. 1, 4 (1993).

3
 STATE v. BRADLEY
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm Bradley’s sentences.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

4