NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

TERRY JUNIOR LYNELL BRABHAM, JR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0217

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-115294-002

The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Andrew Reilly

Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern, Attorney at Law, Chandler

By Janelle A. McEachern

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BRABHAM

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Samuel A. Thumma

joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Terry Junior Lynell Brabham, Jr. (“Brabham”) appeals his 

convictions for aggravated assault and drive-by shooting on the grounds 

there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. For the reasons 

discussed below, we affirm Brabham’s convictions, and also affirm his

sentences as modified. 

DISCUSSION

¶2 “We review the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial 

only to determine if substantial evidence exists to support” the verdict. 

State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, 411, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 912, 913 (2005). “Substantial 

evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to 

support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277, 290, 908 P.2d 1062, 1075 (1996). Substantial 

evidence required for a conviction may be either circumstantial or direct. 

State v. Pena, 209 Ariz. 503, 505, ¶ 7, 104 P.3d 873, 875 (App. 2005). We view 

the evidence “in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury verdict, and 

resolve all inferences against” the defendant. Stroud, 209 Ariz. at 411, ¶ 6, 

103 P.3d at 913. 

¶3 A defendant commits the crime of drive-by shooting by 

“intentionally discharging a weapon from a motor vehicle at a person, 

another occupied motor vehicle or an occupied structure.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

(“A.R.S.”) § 13-1209(A) (West 2014).

1 As applicable here, the crime of 

aggravated assault required the State to prove Brabham intentionally, 

knowingly, or recklessly caused any physical injury to another using a 

deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1) and 

-1204(A)(2).

 

1 We cite to the current version of the applicable statutes in this 

decision, unless revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 
STATE v. BRABHAM

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Our review of the record shows there is substantial evidence 

supporting Brabham’s convictions for drive-by shooting and aggravated 

assault. Shortly before the shooting, a confrontation occurred between the 

victim and Brabham as the victim left his apartment complex. Brabham, 

while sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle, threatened the victim 

by flashing a gang sign and stating, “What’s up, blood?” Brabham’s vehicle 

then followed the victim as he walked along Central Avenue. 

¶5 Immediately prior to the shooting, the victim observed

Brabham sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle. The victim then 

saw shots being fired from the passenger side of the vehicle. The victim 

attempted to run, but was struck in the back by a bullet. 

¶6 The vehicle then drove away, was pursued by law 

enforcement, and ultimately crashed during the pursuit. Brabham fled the 

vehicle on foot. Officers subsequently found Brabham hiding in a nearby 

vacant lot.

¶7 After his arrest, Brabham was present when officers discussed 

their intention to test him for gunshot residue (“GSR”). Brabham then spit 

on his hand in an apparent attempt to conceal any gunshot residue. Despite 

Brabham’s efforts at concealment, the GSR tests were “highly specific,” and

showed that Brabham had either discharged a weapon, was in the vicinity 

when a weapon was discharged, or handled an item that had GSR on it. 

¶8 Officers later searched Brabham’s vehicle and found two 

firearms and a bullet on the passenger side floorboard. One of the guns, an

Uzi, was loaded and had a bullet in the chamber of the gun. Brabham 

admitted to owning the Uzi and placing it on the floor next to where he was 

sitting. 

¶9 Based on the evidence in this case, a reasonable juror could

have concluded that Brabham was guilty of aggravated assault and driveby shooting. Accordingly, we find no error. 

DNA Testing Fee

¶10 The trial court also ordered Brabham to submit to DNA 

testing and to “pay the applicable fee for the cost of that testing in 

accordance with A.R.S. § 13-610.” This court recently held that A.R.S. § 13-

610 does not require a convicted defendant to pay for the costs of his DNA 

testing. State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶¶ 11-13, 307 P.3d 35, 39 (App. 

2013). We therefore vacate the order requiring Brabham to pay for the cost 

of DNA testing. 
STATE v. BRABHAM

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Brabham’s convictions. 

We also affirm Brabham’s sentences as modified.