State v. Stewart

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHASE EVAN STEWART, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0540
FILED 02-13-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR202100628
The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Zickerman Law Office, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. STEWART
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

F O S T E R, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Chase
Stewart has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable questions of
law and asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Stewart
was convicted of aggravated assault, a class 3 felony. Stewart was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he has not done so. After
reviewing the record, this Court affirms Stewart’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On May 6, 2021, Stewart drove his vehicle down an interstate
offramp and shot at another motorist. Although not directly hit, shrapnel
from the bullet struck the victim’s arm and grazed his shoulder. Stewart
drove off, and the victim called 911. Law enforcement eventually stopped
Stewart, recovered a handgun from inside his vehicle and arrested him.
The State charged Stewart with three offenses: drive by shooting, a class 2
felony; aggravated assault, a class 3 felony; and criminal damage in an
amount between $1,000 and $2,000, a class 6 felony. Stewart moved to
suppress his statements to police, and after a voluntariness hearing, the
court denied his motion.

¶3 Before trial, the State moved to dismiss the drive by shooting
and criminal damage charges with prejudice, which the court granted. The
remaining aggravated assault charge proceeded to a jury trial. After the
State rested, Stewart moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the court
denied. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a). The jury found Stewart guilty of aggravated
assault and separately found it to be a dangerous offense.

¶4 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in
compliance with Stewart’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure 26. The court found mitigating factors: (1) Stewart’s
family and community supported him, (2) Stewart lacked criminal history
and (3) Stewart expressed remorse. The court found emotional harm to the

2
 STATE v. STEWART
Decision of the Court

victim as an aggravating factor. After weighing the mitigating and
aggravating factors, the court sentenced Stewart to a slightly aggravated
term of 10 years’ imprisonment. A.R.S. § 13-704(A). The court awarded 602
days of presentence incarceration credit. The court also imposed the
following fines and fees: a $750 fine, a $2 Victims’ Right Enforcement
Assessment, a $9 Victims’ Right Fund Assessment, a $13 Crime Penalty
Assessment, a $20 Probation Assessment and a $20 Time Payment Fee.

DISCUSSION

¶5 This Court reviews Stewart’s conviction and sentence for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
Stewart’s counsel advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire
record, counsel has found no arguable questions of law. This Court has read
and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible
error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 299, and finds none. All proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The record reveals counsel represented Stewart at all stages of the
proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory
guidelines. This Court affirms Stewart’s conviction and sentence.

CONCLUSION

¶6 For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms. Upon the filing
of this decision, Stewart’s counsel shall inform Stewart of the status of his
appeal and his future options. 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). From the date of this decision, if he desires, Stewart shall
have fifteen days to proceed with a pro per motion for reconsideration or
thirty days to proceed with a pro per petition for review. Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

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

3