NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

JUSTIN ANDREW YANCY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0640

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2012-007266-001

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Spencer D. Heffel

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
STATE v. YANCY

Decision of the Court

2

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Justin Yancy timely appeals his conviction of 

endangerment, a class one misdemeanor and domestic violence offense.

¶2 After searching the record on appeal and finding no 

arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Yancy’s defense counsel 

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this Court to 

search the record for fundamental error. Yancy has been afforded an 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief, in propria persona, and has not 

done so. After reviewing the record, we find no error and, therefore,

affirm Yancy’s conviction and sentence. 

Background1

¶3 Yancy lived with his mother and younger brother in a 

Scottsdale apartment. On January 23, 2012, while cleaning his .22 rifle in 

his bedroom, and apparently unaware a bullet was in the chamber, Yancy 

pulled the trigger. The rifle discharged, with the bullet passing through 

the wall of Yancy’s bedroom, through two bathrooms, and continuing

through to his mother’s bedroom, where his mother was sitting on her bed 

watching television. The bullet exited his mother’s bedroom wall, after 

passing within one to five feet from her, leaving his mother unharmed. 

When the younger brother informed his teacher of the incident, and 

school authorities contacted the Scottsdale police department, police 

conducted a welfare check at the residence. Yancy admitted the events of 

the prior night to the officers. 

¶4 Yancy was initially indicted for endangerment, a class six

felony and a domestic violence offense, in violation of Arizona Revised 

Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 13-1201 (2014) and -3601 (2014).2,3 On the State’s 

motion, the trial court later amended the charge to a class one

misdemeanor. Yancy then rejected the State’s offer to reduce the charge to 

 1 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the 

verdict, and we resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. 

State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 

2 A.R.S. § 13-3601(A)(4) provides that endangerment is a domestic offense 

if “[t]he victim is related to the defendant . . . by blood . . . as a parent.” 

3 Absent material revisions, we cite the current version of statutes and 

rules unless otherwise indicated. 
STATE v. YANCY

Decision of the Court

3

a class two misdemeanor, pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to 

a trial to the court. 

¶5 During trial, Yancy testified his father had instructed him 

how to clean his rifle; thereby admitting he knew how to do so. Yancy 

further acknowledged that proper gun handling procedure required not 

pulling a trigger inside a house. Yancy also indicated the last time he fired 

the rifle was a month prior to the incident, he did not recall leaving bullets 

in the chamber, and believed the chamber was empty at the time he 

cleaned the rifle. Yancy did not know why he pulled the trigger, stating:

Q: So if you didn’t have to do it for cleaning, why did you 

do it?

A: I don’t really remember. I mean, I did it, and I was scared 

afterwards.

Q: Did you put a lot of thought into pulling this trigger?

A: No. 

Q: I guess – did you even put the thought in this saying: I’m 

going to pull the trigger now?

A: No. 

Q: So you’re not sure even sure [sic] why you did this?

A: Definitely. 

¶6 The trial court found Yancy guilty of endangerment, a class 

one misdemeanor and a non-dangerous and non-repetitive offense. A.R.S. 

§ 13-1201. In addition, the trial court determined the misdemeanor was a 

domestic violence offense. See A.R.S. § 13-3601(A)(4). In consideration of 

Yancy’s history of good behavior, and because the offense was reckless 

rather than intentional, the trial court suspended his sentence and placed 

Yancy on six months unsupervised probation. 

Discussion

¶7 After a diligent search of the entire record, Yancy’s counsel 

has advised this Court he found no arguable question of law. We have 

fully reviewed for reversible error, and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 

300, 451 P.2d at 881. 
STATE v. YANCY

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 In order to convict a person of endangerment, the State must 

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person “recklessly endanger[ed]

another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical 

injury.” A.R.S. §§ 13-115(A), -1201(A). A class one misdemeanor offense 

of endangerment, however, includes “all other cases” not involving a 

“substantial risk of imminent death.” A.R.S. § 13-1201(B); State v. 

Carpenter, 141 Ariz. 29, 31, 684 P.2d 910, 912 (App. 1984) (noting the crime 

of endangerment is “a felony only if it involved substantial risk of death to 

another”). Although a conviction under § 13-1201 requires the State to

prove the defendant placed the victim at a substantial risk of physical 

injury, reckless endangerment does not require that the victim actually 

sustain a physical injury. Campas v. Superior Court, 159 Ariz. 343, 345, 767 

P.2d 230, 232 (App. 1989). A person acts recklessly when he “is aware of 

and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the 

result will occur,” and that risk is “of such nature and degree that 

disregard of such risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of 

conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” A.R.S. 

§ 13-105(10)(c). 

¶9 Based upon our review of the record, we find substantial 

evidence supports Yancy’s conviction. Substantial evidence is “such proof 

that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to 

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

State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (citation omitted). 

Given the common understanding of the inherent dangerousness of guns

as well as his prior experience with this specific rifle, Yancy was aware of 

the substantial and unjustifiable risk inherent in pulling the trigger while

in his apartment, and the threat such an act posed to other persons in the 

apartment complex, particularly, his mother and brother with whom he 

resided. Furthermore, although Yancy failed to ensure the rifle was not 

loaded before beginning to clean it, he nonetheless pulled the trigger 

while cleaning it and thereby risked the possibility of an accidental 

discharge, even though he believed the rifle to be unloaded. Such actions 

fall well below the standard of conduct a reasonable person would engage 

in as Yancy confirmed in his testimony. See A.R.S. § 13-105(10)(c). Finally, 

the trajectory of the bullet indicated Yancy did in fact expose his mother to 

a substantial risk of physical harm: the bullet passed within one to five 

feet from where she was seated. See United States v. Hernandez-Castellanos,

287 F.3d 876, 879 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating a felony conviction under A.R.S. § 

13-1201 required proof the defendant’s “conduct did in fact create . . . a 

substantial risk as to each victim”) (citing State v. Doss, 192 Ariz. 408, 411, 

¶ 9, 966 P.2d 1012, 1015 (App. 1998). We conclude ample evidence 

supports Yancy’s conviction. 
STATE v. YANCY

Decision of the Court

5

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

pertaining to Yancy’s representation in this appeal have ended. Yancy’s 

counsel need do no more than inform Yancy of this appeal’s outcome and 

his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate 

for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State 

v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). 

¶11 Yancy has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed with an in propria persona petition for review, if he so wishes. See

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(a). Upon our own motion, we also grant Yancy 

thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona

motion for reconsideration. 

Conclusion

¶12 We affirm Yancy’s conviction and sentence.