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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER LEE WOLTER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0744

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-153240-001 DT

The Honorable Lauren R. Guyton, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Michael J. Dew

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

FILED 8-14-2018
STATE v. WOLTER

Decision of the Court

2

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

Christopher Lee Wolter (“Wolter”) appeals his convictions 

and sentences for two counts of aggravated assault, class three dangerous 

felonies, and one count of unlawful discharge of a firearm, a class six 

dangerous felony. Wolter’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith 

v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and 

State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating he has searched the record for error 

but failed to identify any “arguable question of law.” Wolter’s counsel 

therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See 

State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this Court 

reviews the entire record for reversible error). This Court allowed Wolter

to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona 

Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A) (2018).

1 Finding no reversible error, we 

affirm Wolter’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

Wolter and the victim were friends and co-workers. While at 

work, the victim learned that Wolter was romantically interested in the 

victim’s fiancé and that he was messaging her on social media. The victim 

confronted Wolter, verbally threatened him, and then left work after 

receiving permission from his boss. When the victim returned to work the 

following day, he was fired for the verbal altercation he had with Wolter. 

The victim sent Wolter a Facebook message the same day, apologizing for 

the altercation and offering to meet in person to discuss the issues between 

them. Wolter did not respond to the victim, but he did continue to send 

messages to the victim’s fiancé. In response, two days after the verbal 

confrontation, the victim contacted Wolter’s wife and informed her that 

Wolter had been messaging his fiancé.

Within thirty to forty-five minutes after the victim contacted 

Wolter’s wife, Wolter drove to the victim’s house and began repeatedly 

 

1 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute’s current version.

2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against Wolter. See State v. 

Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).
STATE v. WOLTER

Decision of the Court

3

honking his car horn. The victim went outside and approached Wolter. 

When the victim was approximately ten feet from Wolter’s car, Wolter 

exited his car holding a twelve-gauge shotgun, cocked the gun, aimed at 

the victim’s face as he advanced on the victim, and asked, is this “how [you] 

want to die?” The victim put his hands up, began to back up, and then 

attempted to swat Wolter’s gun away from his face. Wolter shot the

victim’s left foot. An ambulance took the victim to the hospital where his 

leg was amputated below the knee.

Wolter fled the scene. He drove to his parents’ house and 

later called 9-1-1. Wolter reported that he “discharged” his weapon. He

was arrested and taken into custody. Wolter received Miranda3 warnings

and, when questioned by a detective, Wolter admitted he fired the gun, but 

claimed he did so in self-defense. He claimed he “wasn’t sure what had 

happened to [the victim],” but he “noticed [the victim] fall to the ground.”

The State filed a direct complaint, charging Wolter with three 

counts: two counts of aggravated assault, class three dangerous felonies; 

and one count of unlawful discharge of a firearm, a class six dangerous 

felony. A grand jury indicted Wolter on the same charges. The State 

subsequently filed a supervening indictment, charging Wolter with the 

same crimes.

The case proceeded to a multi-day trial. The jury found 

Wolter guilty as charged. After a return of the guilty verdicts, the court 

held an aggravation phase. The State alleged three aggravating 

circumstances: (1) the offenses involved the infliction or threatened 

infliction of serious physical injury; (2) the offenses were dangerous; and 

(3) the offenses caused physical, emotional or financial harm to the victim. 

The jury found the State proved each aggravator beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in 

compliance with Wolter’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 26. The court sentenced Wolter to presumptive, 

concurrent sentences: 7.5 years’ imprisonment for count 1; 7.5 years’

imprisonment for count 2; and 2.25 years’ imprisonment for count 3. Wolter 

received credit for 167 days of presentence incarceration. The court left the 

issue of restitution open for a period of five years.

 

3 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
STATE v. WOLTER

Decision of the Court

4

ANALYSIS

The record reflects Wolter received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and was 

present at all critical stages. The court did not conduct a voluntariness 

hearing; however, the record did not suggest a question about the 

voluntariness of Wolter’s statements to police. See State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 

415, 419 (1977); State v. Finn, 111 Ariz. 271, 275 (1974).

The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence 

sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly comprised of 

twelve members. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of 

the charges, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of a unanimous 

verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which was confirmed by 

juror polling. The court received and considered a presentence report, 

addressed its contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed legal 

sentences for the crimes of which Wolter was convicted.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Accordingly, we affirm Wolter’s 

convictions and sentences.

After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Wolter’s representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel 

need do no more than inform Wolter of the status of the appeal and of his 

future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for 

petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 

Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Wolter has thirty days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration 

or petition for review.