State v. Neely

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NICHOLAUS ADAM NEELY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0083
FILED 05-13-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR202100147
The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe
joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Nicholaus Adam Neely (“Neely”) appeals his
convictions and sentences for aggravated assault under A.R.S. § 13-
1204(A)(2) and disorderly conduct under A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(6). Neely’s
counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State
v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising us he found no meritorious grounds
for reversal and asking us to search the record for fundamental error. We
gave Neely an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do
so. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Neely’s convictions and
sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Neely. See State v.
Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 On the night of January 29, 2021, A.L. called the police to
report that a man had pulled a gun on him at his residence. The Yavapai
County Sheriff’s Office responded. On scene, A.L. told officers that he
observed a car speeding down his street, so he went outside and yelled at
the driver to slow down. The vehicle stopped down the block and reversed
back to A.L.’s residence. The driver and a passenger exited the vehicle. The
driver approached within ten feet of A.L. and pointed a gun at him. By this
time, A.L.’s wife, R.L., and R.L.’s father had also come outside. After a few
minutes, the vehicle’s passenger convinced the driver to get back in the
vehicle and they drove off. A.L., R.L., and R.L.’s father retreated into the
residence. A.L. described certain of the vehicle’s features and the handgun
to the officers, but he admitted that nighttime darkness hindered his ability
to identify the driver.

¶4 Officers canvassed the nearby area and located a vehicle
matching A.L.’s description. The vehicle was parked in front of Neely’s

2
 STATE v. NEELY
Decision of the Court

residence. Upon approaching the vehicle, officers observed a handgun in
plain view. Officers knocked on the door; Neely’s wife answered and
indicated that Neely had been home for about thirty minutes. When
requested to do so, Neely exited his residence but later became belligerent.
During an outburst, he admitted he owned the vehicle matching A.L.’s
description.

¶5 The officers then returned to A.L.’s residence and showed
him a Motor Vehicle Division photograph of Neely. Although A.L. could
not be certain, he thought the photograph showed the individual who had
pointed a gun at him. Officers also showed A.L. a photograph of Neely’s
vehicle, which A.L. positively identified as the one involved in the incident.

¶6 After A.L. positively identified Neely’s vehicle, officers
returned to Neely’s residence and placed him under arrest. Officers
collected shoes matching footprints found at the scene of the crime from
Neely’s residence and the .45 caliber handgun from Neely’s vehicle.

¶7 A grand jury indicted Neely on one count of aggravated
assault and two counts of disorderly conduct. Before trial, the court
dismissed one of the two disorderly conduct charges.

¶8 Trial lasted a day-and-a-half. The State called A.L., R.L., one
of the investigating officers, and a firearms expert as witnesses. Both A.L.
and R.L. described the incident in question. A.L. testified that Neely looked
like the individual who had pointed a gun at him, but he could not be one
hundred percent sure. Both A.L. and R.L. testified that the vehicle located
at Neely’s residence was the vehicle driven by the individual who
committed the crimes. The officer testified about the investigation and
described how officers matched the pair of shoes from Neely’s residence
with a muddy footprint found at A.L.’s residence. The firearms expert
testified that the gun found in Neely’s vehicle was operational. Neely
testified in his own defense but called no other witnesses. Neely testified
that he was at home and asleep when the crimes occurred.

¶9 The jury convicted Neely on both remaining counts. On the
aggravated assault conviction, the court sentenced Neely to six years’
imprisonment, which is less than the presumptive term. On the disorderly
conduct conviction, the court sentenced Neely to twenty-one months’
imprisonment. The court ordered the two sentences to be served
concurrently and gave Neely credit for 134 days of presentence
incarceration. Neely timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§§ 13-4031, 13-4033(A)(1).

3
 STATE v. NEELY
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶10 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find
none.

¶11 Neely was present and represented by counsel at all critical
stages of the proceeding. The record reflects that the superior court
afforded Neely all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the
proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings,
and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient
to support the jury’s verdict. Neely’s sentence is also within the range
prescribed by law. We find no error.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm Neely’s convictions and sentences. Defense
counsel’s obligations in this appeal will end once Neely is informed of the
outcome and his future options, unless counsel finds an issue appropriate
for the Arizona Supreme Court’s review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
584–85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Neely has 30 days from the date
of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion for reconsideration or
petition for review.

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

4