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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SCOTTI ALEXANDER KING, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0779

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201500256

The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate's Office, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. KING

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), 

following Scotti A. King's conviction of aggravated assault by domestic 

violence, a Class 2 felony; aggravated assault by domestic violence, a Class 

6 felony; aggravated assault by domestic violence, a Class 3 felony; and 

disorderly conduct involving a weapon by domestic violence, a Class 6 

felony. King's counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no 

arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 

259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). 

King has filed a supplemental brief identifying various issues, which we 

address below. Counsel now asks this court to search the record for 

fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm King's 

convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Officers responded to a domestic violence call at King's 

residence.

1 M.S., King's sister, was sitting on the couch, when King began 

threatening their mother. M.S. asked King to stop, but instead of stopping, 

he grabbed M.S., shook her, yelled at her and spit in her face. Trying to 

intervene to prevent harm to M.S. after King pulled a knife, King's brother,

J.S., jumped on King. R.S., father of M.S. and J.S., ran in after hearing M.S. 

scream and saw J.S. and King on the floor. R.S. retrieved the knife from 

King and grabbed him in an attempt to control him. When R.S. released 

King, King fled to the bedroom and grabbed another knife. J.S. confronted 

King in the hallway, and King began slashing at J.S., eventually cutting him. 

After R.S. retrieved the second knife from King, he went to the bedroom 

again and emerged with a tomahawk, which he threw at a window before 

R.S. wrestled him to the floor.

 

1 Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the jury's verdicts and resolve all inferences against King. State

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

Decision of the Court

3

¶3 A jury convicted King of three counts of aggravated assault 

by domestic violence and one count of disorderly conduct involving a 

weapon by domestic violence. Citing King's mental health issues, the court 

imposed mitigated concurrent and consecutive sentences totaling 16.5

years, with 245 days' presentence incarceration credit.

¶4 We have jurisdiction of King's timely appeal pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised 

Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), 13-4031 (2016) and -4033 (2016).2

DISCUSSION

A. Issues Raised in Supplemental Brief.

1. Sufficiency of the evidence.

¶5 King challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him, 

pointing in particular to purported inconsistent and assertedly false 

testimony by the victims. King argues that other than the broken window,

he is an "[innocent] man."

¶6 This court will not reweigh the evidence in deciding whether 

there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts. State v. Guerra, 

161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). A witness's credibility is determined by the jury. 

State v. Ferrari, 112 Ariz. 324, 334 (1975). Here, the victims testified as 

recounted above, and the jury apparently believed them. The evidence was

sufficient to support the convictions.

2. Alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

¶7 King asserts his trial attorney did nothing for him and "[he] 

had a better chance representing [him]self." King also argues his counsel 

"played sick" during trial and refused to provide him with copies of the 

police reports he requested. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, 

however, should be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief and may 

not be raised on direct appeal. State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9 (2002). 

Therefore, we do not address this issue.

 

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

a statute's current version. 
STATE v. KING

Decision of the Court

4

3. Self-defense claim.

¶8 King also contends that R.S. purposefully and repeatedly

punched his head, knowing King had a previous head injury. King, 

however, points to no evidence to support this argument; moreover, the 

jury was instructed on self-defense but apparently did not accept the notion 

that King's acts toward R.S. were motivated by self-defense.

B. Due-Process Review.

¶9 The record reflects King 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 held appropriate pretrial hearings. 

Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 609, the court addressed two of 

King's prior felony convictions. The court allowed the State to impeach 

King with the prior felony convictions, but ordered that the convictions not 

be identified at trial. King subsequently admitted the prior felony 

convictions during his testimony. The court did not conduct a 

voluntariness hearing. The record, however, does not suggest a question 

about the voluntariness of King's statements to police. See State v. Smith, 

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

¶10 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence 

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

12 members with one alternate. The court properly instructed the jury on 

the elements of the charges, and gave the key instructions concerning 

burden of proof, presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt and the 

necessity of a unanimous verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict. 

The court received and considered a presentence report, addressed its 

contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed legal sentences for the 

crimes of which King was convicted.

CONCLUSION

¶11 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none, and therefore affirm the convictions and resulting sentences. See 

Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300.

¶12 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations 

pertaining to King's representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform King of the outcome of this appeal 

and his future options, 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). On the court's 
STATE v. KING

Decision of the Court

5

own motion, King has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if 

he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. King has 30 days from

the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for 

review.