State v. Samia

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JACOB KANAKAHOLOKI SAMIA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0254
FILED 10-03-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2020-138577-001
The Honorable Margaret B. LaBianca, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson
By Amy M. Thorson
Counsel for Appellee

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Adam Susser
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. SAMIA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Jacob Samia appeals his conviction and sentence for one count
of Felony Murder, Second-Degree Burglary, Third-Degree Burglary, and
Kidnapping. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 We view the trial evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining Samia's convictions, and the evidence presented at trial is
detailed below. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989).

¶3 On October 10, 2020, Samia and several of his coworkers met
to "have some drinks" in Tempe, Arizona. After patronizing several bars
where Samia consumed multiple alcoholic beverages, the group went to a
nearby house party and Samia continued to consume alcohol. Around
midnight, Samia and a group of people from the party walked to a nearby
bar but did not order anything. The group left shortly thereafter and began
socializing on a sidewalk. Samia then walked to a nearby smoke shop;
discovering the door was locked, he began "yelling" and punched the glass
door of the smoke shop five or six times, breaking "a hole in the glass" door.
When people with him asked if he was alright, Samia did not respond and
walked towards a residential neighborhood. As he walked, his injured
hand left a trail of blood. Samia's group decided they no longer wanted to
be around him and walked back to the house party. Shortly after, one
member of the group returned to the smoke shop and called the police.

¶4 When police arrived, they found Samia's cellphone and a
watch "in the walkway" near the shop. Police also observed blood on the
damaged window and a trail of blood leading away from the smoke shop
to a nearby house. Following the trail of blood to the house, police
discovered a passenger vehicle with a door ajar and blood on the door
handle, the "center console area," and the "passenger side seat area." Police
followed the blood trail towards the backyard of the house. They
discovered the back door to the house damaged and a blood trail leading

2
 STATE v. SAMIA
Decision of the Court

into the residence. From the patio, police heard an individual "breathing
very heavily inside" who did not respond when police announced their
presence.

¶5 Police entered the house and discovered the victim lying on
the floor. A pool of blood was beneath the victim's head, and there was a
"cable cord across" his neck and "cable wiring around" his bicep. The victim
had "significant lacerations to his face," an apparent "bite mark" on his right
cheek, a cut to his earlobe, and a swollen face and eyes. Blood was also
"splattered" on the walls, a nearby stack of paper, and an extension cord.
The victim was unresponsive; police called for paramedics to assist and
carried the victim out as he continued to "breathe very heavily."

¶6 After paramedics transported the victim to the hospital,
officers searched the house. Officers discovered blood on a wall, doorjamb,
and a trail of blood going to another section of the house. Police also
discovered a "significant amount of blood" on a bathroom floor and the
inside and outside of a medicine cabinet.

¶7 At the hospital, the victim was unconscious, intubated, and
taken to a "trauma intensive care unit room." The victim never awoke from
his coma and was deemed to have "significant damage to [his] brain tissue"
and considered brain dead. The victim's family decided to remove him
from life support and he died from his injuries on October 20. The medical
examiner found the cause of death was a "cerebral infarction in the setting
of head and neck trauma," commonly referred to as a stroke.

¶8 Samia was charged with five counts: (i) Felony Murder, a
class 1 felony; (ii) Burglary in the Second Degree, a class 3 felony; (iii)
Kidnapping, a class 2 felony; (iv) Burglary in the Third Degree, a class 4
felony; and (v) Criminal Damage, a class 1 misdemeanor. Samia pleaded
guilty to Criminal Damage but went to trial on the remaining charges.

¶9 At trial, doctors and police testified that the victim had several
injuries, including "torn" fingernails, red eyes, "ligature marks" on his face,
and petechiae—red spots resulting from "broken capillaries"—on his face,
head, and eyeballs. Additionally, he had a bite mark on his face, and his
shorts were wet, indicative of possible bladder release, a frequent result of
strangulation. A medical examiner testified that a blood clot formed in a
neck artery which caused the cerebral infarction. The examiner explained
that a clot of this nature could form "in the setting of trauma," including
through strangulation, but could not specify what caused this clot to occur.

3
 STATE v. SAMIA
Decision of the Court

¶10 A police officer present at the crime scene and hospital
testified that the petechiae, broken fingernails, and the presence of wet
shorts were all "consistent with strangulation." One of the victim's nurses
testified that the ligature marks on the victim's neck were likely caused by
a "cord [or] rope" and his injuries were consistent with strangulation.

¶11 At trial, Samia moved for a directed verdict, contending the
State had failed to prove he committed the underlying crimes required for
felony murder. The court denied the motion because the State presented
"substantial evidence to warrant convictions as to each of the counts."

¶12 Samia testified that he "was incredibly drunk" that night and
did not dispute punching and breaking the smoke shop glass door. Samia
stated that he thought the victim's residence was the same as the house
party he previously attended. Believing he recognized the car from the
party, Samia said he went into the car to "look for the garage door opener"
to get into the residence. After failing to find a garage door opener, Samia
testified that he went to the back door and began "shouting," hitting, and
kicking the door to try and get someone's attention. Samia eventually
applied "more pressure" on the door and got inside. Once inside, Samia
testified the victim "came rushing out of the darkness" and a fight ensued.
Samia admitted to biting the victim and "squeez[ing] his neck . . . to cause
discomfort" until the victim "slack[ed] off a little bit." Samia admitted that
this equated to "strangl[ing]" the victim. Samia testified that he then fled
the house without taking anything, and never held or tied the victim down.

¶13 After fleeing the house, Samia testified that he ran through
the victim's yard before "falling into . . . an irrigation ditch." He testified
that he then wanted to "change [his] shirt from this dirty, blood-encrusted,
heavy shirt" and stole a shirt from a nearby clothesline. Samia testified that
he knocked on a nearby house's door and asked the occupants to call the
emergency services; paramedics arrived, treated his injuries, and took him
to the hospital.

¶14 A jury convicted Samia on all four remaining trial counts.
Separately for each count, the jury found Samia guilty of aggravating
factors. The court sentenced him to life in prison for Felony Murder, 21
years for Second-Degree Burglary and Kidnapping, two years for Third-
Degree Burglary, and six months for Criminal Damage—all to run
concurrently. He was given 972 days credit for presentence incarceration.
Samia timely appealed and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

4
 STATE v. SAMIA
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶15 On appeal, Samia does not claim there was insufficient
evidence that he killed the victim. Samia only argues that there was
insufficient evidence to convict him of the underlying charges and the
predicate felonies for the Felony Murder charge. The State disagrees.

¶16 Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law we review de
novo. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). In considering the
sufficiency of the evidence, we view all facts in favor of the verdict and
resolve all evidentiary conflicts against the defendant. State v. Pena, 235
Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla
and is such proof that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt." State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116, 134, ¶ 65 (2006) (cleaned up). If
reasonable people "could differ as to whether the evidence establishes a fact
in issue, that evidence is substantial." State v. Mincey, 141 Ariz. 425, 432
(1984). Further, in conducting our review, we compare the evidence
"against the statutorily required elements of the offense," State v. Brock, 248
Ariz. 583, 592, ¶ 22 (App. 2020) (quoting Pena, 209 Ariz. at 505, ¶ 8), and do
not "reweigh the evidence to decide if [we] would reach the same
conclusions as the trier of fact," State v. Barger, 167 Ariz. 563, 568 (App. 1990).
Substantial evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Pena, 209 Ariz. at 505,
¶ 7.

I. Felony Murder.

¶17 As charged, to commit Felony Murder, a person must cause
the death of another "in the course of and in furtherance" of committing or
attempting to commit Second-Degree Burglary or Kidnapping. A.R.S. § 13-
1105(A)(2).

¶18 To commit Second-Degree Burglary under A.R.S. § 13-1507, a
person must enter or remain "unlawfully in or on a residential structure
with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein." Samia contends
that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that he committed "theft"
or any other predicate felony. This argument lacks merit.

¶19 Aggravated assault can serve as "any felony therein" to
sustain Second-Degree Burglary. See State v. Hankins, 141 Ariz. 217, 221
(1984) ("[R]emaining unlawfully in a residence with the intent to commit an

5
 STATE v. SAMIA
Decision of the Court

assault is a burglary and the burglary warrants a felony murder charge."). 1
As relevant here, a person commits aggravated assault by assaulting
another, and either: (i) the victim is seriously physically injured; (ii) a
"deadly weapon or dangerous instrument" is used; (iii) uses force to cause
"temporary but substantial disfigurement, temporary but substantial loss
or impairment of any body organ or part or a fracture of any body part";
(iv) "the person commits the assault while the victim is bound or otherwise
physically restrained or while the victim's capacity to resist is substantially
impaired"; or (v) enters "the private home of another with the intent to
commit the assault." A.R.S. § 13-1204. A person commits assault by
"[k]nowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or
provoke such person." A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(3).

¶20 Substantial evidence was presented that Samia "unlawfully"
entered the victim's house. Samia admitted that he was "kicking and
hitting" the back door before unlawfully gaining entry to the victim's house.
Samia also admitted to entering the victim's vehicle unlawfully to "grab a
garage door clicker" to enter the house. See A.R.S. § 13-1501 (defining
unlawfully entering as "a person who enters or remains on premises when
the person's intent for so entering . . . is not licensed, authorized or
otherwise privileged"); State v. Taylor, 25 Ariz. 497, 499 (App. 1976) ("An
inference of the intent necessary for conviction of burglary may be drawn
when unauthorized entry into the premises is gained by force.").

¶21 At trial, Samia also admitted to "pushing" the victim,
punching the victim "as hard as [he] could" multiple times, biting the
victim, and putting "constant force and pressure" on the victim's neck.
From this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Samia punched,
bit, pushed, and put pressure on the victim's neck with the intent to injure,
insult, or provoke. See State v. Lester, 11 Ariz. 408, 410 (App. 1970) ("Intent
may be inferred from the acts of the accused and the circumstances of the
assault."). Further, the jury heard substantial evidence that (a) the victim
was "seriously physically injured," (b) Samia's use of force caused
"substantial disfigurement," and (c) there was "substantial loss or
impairment of any body organ."

¶22 Because the State presented sufficient evidence to support
Samia's Second-Degree Burglary conviction, we affirm Samia's Felony
Murder conviction. See State v. Greene, 192 Ariz. 431, 437, ¶ 19 (1998) (stating

1 Depending on the subsection, A.R.S. § 13-1204 classifies aggravated
assault as a felony, ranging from class 2 through class 6.

6
 STATE v. SAMIA
Decision of the Court

that a defendant need only be convicted of one predicate offense for a felony
murder conviction to stand).

II. The Other Offenses.

¶23 Samia also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain
his Kidnapping, Second-Degree Burglary, and Third-Degree Burglary
convictions. As discussed above, supra ¶¶ 17–22, we find sufficient
evidence for Second-Degree Burglary and affirm that conviction. We
address Samia's challenges to his convictions for Kidnapping and Third-
Degree Burglary in turn.

A. Kidnapping.

¶24 Under Arizona law, kidnapping occurs when one "knowingly
restrain[s] another person with the intent to . . . [i]nflict death [or] physical
injury . . . on the victim." A.R.S. § 13-1304(A)(3).2 Restraint is defined as
"restrict[ing] a person's movements without consent, without legal
authority, and in a manner which interferes substantially with such
person's liberty, by either moving such person . . . or by confining such
person." A.R.S. § 13-1301(2). Restraint without consent requires physical
force, intimidation, or deception. Id.

¶25 Substantial evidence was presented that Samia restrained the
victim with intent to cause physical injury. Samia admitted he intentionally
placed his hands around the victim's neck and squeezed with enough force
until the weight of the victim "slack[ed] off." Samia admitted in his
testimony that this amounted to strangling the victim. Strangling a victim
is a form of restraint for kidnapping purposes. See State v. Lelevier, 250 Ariz.
165, 173, ¶ 37 (App. 2020) (finding evidence of strangulation as a restraint
for kidnapping). The State also offered the following evidence that the
victim was strangled: (i) there were ligature marks around the victim's
neck; (ii) the victim was found with cable around his bicep area and across
his neck; (iii) the victim's shorts were wet, likely from losing control of his
bladder; (iv) the victim's fingernails were broken and damaged; and (v) the
presence of many petechiae.

¶26 In light of this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that
Samia restrained the victim with the intent to cause physical injury,
supporting the Kidnapping conviction.

2 Under A.R.S. § 13-1204(B), kidnapping ranges from a class 2 through 4

felony.

7
 STATE v. SAMIA
Decision of the Court

B. Third-Degree Burglary.

¶27 To secure a conviction for third-degree burglary, the State was
required to show Samia "[e]nter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully in or on a
nonresidential structure . . . with the intent to commit any theft or any
felony therein." A.R.S. § 13-1506(A)(1). Intent may be inferred and does not
need to be supported by direct proof. State v. Noriega, 187 Ariz. 282, 286
(App. 1996) ("[T]he defendant's mental state will rarely be provable by
direct evidence and the jury will usually have to infer it from his behaviors
and other circumstances surrounding the event."). But intent is not always
inferred from entry alone; courts will look for additional evidence to
support the finding. State v. Malloy, 131 Ariz. 125, 130 (1981).

¶28 The State presented substantial and undisputed evidence that
Samia entered the vehicle unlawfully. Samia himself testified that he
entered the car with no permission from the owner. It does not matter that
Samia believed he "recognize[d] the car from the house party." A
reasonable jury could find that Samia entered the car unlawfully.

¶29 The evidence is much closer regarding Samia's intent to
commit a theft or felony inside the vehicle. To begin, there were no signs
of forced entry into the vehicle. See Malloy, 131 Ariz. at 130 (stating that
unauthorized entry by force may sustain a burglary conviction); State v.
Kindred, 232 Ariz. 611, 614, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (stating that forced entry
permits an inference that the defendant had the requisite intent for
burglary). Nor were there any tools, confessions, or conversations
evidencing any such criminal intent. See State v. Rood, 11 Ariz. 102, 104
(App. 1969) (stating that circumstantial evidence to prove intent can include
tools, confession, or prior conversations).

¶30 During closing argument, the State argued that Samia was
trying to steal cigarettes from the car, pointing to Samia's admission that he
had previously attempted to steal cigarettes from the smoke shop. On
appeal, the State only argues that "jurors could conclude that Samia, having
been unsuccessful in his attempts thus far to acquire cigarettes, entered [the
victim's] car with the intent to look for and steal any cigarettes he might
find inside." On its own, Samia's nonforceful entry to the vehicle is not
enough to show intent. See Malloy, 131 Ariz. at 130. And Samia's blood on
the door, the seat nearby the door he opened, and the center console could
be consistent with Samia's testimony that he was looking for a garage door
opener. But such marks could also reflect someone looking for cigarettes.
While the evidence of intent here is thin, we must view it in favor of
sustaining the conviction. Pena, 235 Ariz. at 279, ¶ 5. A reasonable jury

8
 STATE v. SAMIA
Decision of the Court

could infer that Samia's search for cigarettes began at the smoke shop and
continued to the car. See State v. Stidham, 164 Ariz. 145, 146 (App. 1990)
(stating that "the existence of a particular fact before or after the act in
question may be shown to indicate the existence of that same condition at
the time of the act"). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Third-
Degree Burglary conviction.

CONCLUSION

¶31 For the above-stated reasons, we affirm Samia's convictions.

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

9