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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERT DAVID PEARSALL, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0398 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201801375 

The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Deborah Celeste Kinney

Counsel for Appellee 

Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix

By Nicole Countryman

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-10-2022
STATE v. PEARSALL

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Pearsall appeals his sentence, arguing the superior court erred 

in finding he had historical prior felony convictions. For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 After a jury trial, Pearsall was convicted of attempted firstdegree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. At sentencing, the 

State alleged Pearsall had three historical prior felony convictions and

submitted certified court records for three prior cases and a Department of 

Corrections (“DOC”) packet listing Pearsall’s name, date of birth, social 

security number, photograph, and conviction record. Defense counsel did 

not object and the court admitted the exhibit. 

¶3 The superior court found the evidence supported the State’s 

allegation of historical prior felony convictions and sentenced Pearsall as a 

category three repetitive offender. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-703(C). 

The court sentenced Pearsall to three concurrent prison terms, the longest 

of which was 28 years.

¶4 We have jurisdiction over Pearsall’s timely appeal under 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(4). 

DISCUSSION

¶5 Pearsall challenges the court’s finding that he is the person to 

whom the conviction records refer. We review the superior court’s finding 

of a historical prior felony conviction de novo. State v. Rasul, 216 Ariz. 491, 

496, ¶ 20 (App. 2007). Because Pearsall did not object to the State’s 

evidence, we review for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 

153, 154 (1991) (holding that the failure to raise an objection in the superior 

court waives all but fundamental error review). Imposition of an illegal 

sentence, however, is always fundamental error. State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 
STATE v. PEARSALL

Decision of the Court

3 

339, 350, ¶ 4 (App. 2002) (citation omitted). Thus, if the court erroneously 

enhanced Pearsall’s sentence, we must vacate his sentence. Id. 

¶6 The State must prove a prior conviction by clear and 

convincing evidence and admit “positive identification establishing that the 

accused is the same person who previously was convicted, as well as 

evidence of the conviction itself.” State v. Cons, 208 Ariz. 409, 415, ¶¶ 15-16 

(App. 2004) (citation omitted). The proper procedure is for the State to offer 

a certified copy of the prior conviction and establish that the defendant is 

the person to whom the document refers. Id. at ¶ 16; State v. Hauss, 140 Ariz. 

230, 231 (1984) (citations omitted) (holding that admission of documentary 

evidence is mandatory in most cases to prove prior convictions). 

¶7 Contrary to Pearsall’s contention, the State need not call a

fingerprint expert, nor any other witness, to testify. See State v. Solis, 236 

Ariz. 242, 247-49, ¶¶ 17, 20-22 (App. 2014) (holding that DOC record with

photographs matching other admitted documents was sufficient and no 

testimonial evidence was required). The State sufficiently proved the prior 

convictions when it submitted the certified court records and Pearsall’s

DOC packet. See id.; Hauss, 140 Ariz. at 231. Pearsall contends the 

photograph in the DOC packet was outdated and printed in black and 

white, but he does not dispute that his name, date of birth, criminal record,

and social security number matched the information in the certified 

conviction records. Notably, Pearsall does not argue that he is not the 

person who was previously convicted. See Solis, 236 Ariz. at 248-49, ¶ 22

(citation omitted). Pearsall has not shown the court erred in finding he had 

historical prior felony convictions.

CONCLUSION

¶8 For the reasons stated above, we affirm Pearsall’s sentence.