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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IMOUND LOVELL DRUMMOND,

Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0284 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017-143936-001

The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix

By Joel M. Glynn

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 2-28-2019
STATE v. DRUMMOND

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Imound Drummond timely filed this appeal in accordance 

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

(1969), following his conviction of aggravated assault of a peace officer, a 

Class 5 felony. Drummond's counsel has searched the record on appeal but

found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous, and asks this court 

to search the record for fundamental error. Drummond was given the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. See Smith v. 

Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 284 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 

Ariz. 530, 537 (App. 1999). After reviewing the entire record, we affirm 

Drummond's conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On September 24, 2017, Tempe police officers came upon 

Drummond as they responded to an unrelated matter.1 Drummond was 

wearing a backpack. During the encounter, officers placed him in 

handcuffs and began searching him. Eventually they decided to search the

backpack, but could not remove the backpack without first uncuffing 

Drummond. Not wanting to uncuff Drummond, officers cut one of the 

backpack's straps.

¶3 Drummond became upset about what the officers had done 

to his backpack and squirmed and forced his weight against the officers. In 

turn, the officers began pulling on Drummond to get him to sit on the 

ground. One of the officers kicked the back of Drummond's thigh to force 

him to sit down. During the struggle, Drummond's right arm came free 

from the handcuffs (they later were found to have a broken locking 

 

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

sustaining the jury's verdict and resolve all inferences against Drummond. 

State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013).
STATE v. DRUMMOND

Decision of the Court

3

mechanism), and he struck one of the officers in the chest. The officer

stumbled back and fell to the ground, sustaining minor injuries to his wrist.

¶4 The State charged Drummond, as relevant here, with one 

count of aggravated assault of a peace officer. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.")

§ 13-1204(A)(8)(a) (2019).2 An eight-person jury found him guilty. After 

finding that Drummond had two historical prior felony convictions, the 

superior court sentenced him as a category-three repetitive offender to a 

slightly mitigated term of four and one half years' imprisonment, with 215

days' presentence incarceration credit. See A.R.S. § 13-703(J) (2019).

¶5 Drummond timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

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

120.21(A)(1) (2019), 13-4031 (2019) and -4033(A)(1) (2019).

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reflects Drummond received a fair trial. He was 

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

present at all critical stages. Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 609, the 

court held a hearing on Drummond's prior felony convictions and sanitized 

them (in agreement with the parties) before allowing the State to use them 

to impeach Drummond. The jury was properly comprised of eight 

members, and the State presented direct and circumstantial evidence 

sufficient to allow the jury to convict. 

¶7 The court properly instructed the jury on the State's burden 

of proof, the presumption of innocence and the necessity of a unanimous 

verdict. The court, however, mistakenly instructed the jury that the State 

needed to prove that the "victim was a peace officer engaged in his official 

duties." (The legislature had recently amended § 13-1204(A)(8)(a) to 

remove the requirement that the assault be committed while the officer was 

engaged in his or her official duties. 2017 Ariz. Sess. Law, ch. 162, § 2 (1st

Reg. Sess.). In any event, the mistake did not constitute fundamental error; 

if anything, it went in Drummond's favor because the jury was told that the 

State had to prove an additional element.

¶8 The jury returned a unanimous verdict, and acknowledged 

the verdict in open court. The court received and considered a presentence 

 

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

the current version of a statute or rule.
STATE v. DRUMMOND

Decision of the Court

4

report, addressed its contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed 

a legal sentence for the crime of which Drummond was convicted.

CONCLUSION

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

find none, and therefore affirm Drummond's conviction and resulting 

sentence. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Although the court granted Drummond 

one more day of presentence incarceration credit than was warranted, 

absent a cross-appeal by the State, we will not correct the sentence. State v. 

Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 286 (1990).

¶10 Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Drummond's

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than 

inform Drummond 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 own motion, Drummond has 30 

days to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. 

Drummond has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he

wishes, with a pro per petition for review.