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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS
D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA
, Appellee
,

v.

J AMIE LAMONT TERRY
, Appellant

.
No. 1 CA-CR 17-0118

A ppeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2016-102001-001 The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee

Ma ricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate
, Phoenix By Frances J. Gray C ounsel for Appellant FILED 12-19-2017STATE v. TERRY Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

M c M U R D I E , Judge:

¶1 Jamie Lamont Terry appeals his conviction s of aggravated assault and assault and the resulting sentence s. Terry ’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon
, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Terry was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v. Clark , 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Terry ’s conviction s and sentence s.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Terry and T.P. had been in a romantic relationship for seven years. T.P. ended the relationship in early January 2016, moved away fro m Terry into her parent’s house
, and did not respond to Terry’s calls.

¶3 On Ja nuary 13, 2016, around 8:30 p.m., T.P. was walking home from visiting a friend when Terry approached her. Terry angrily told T.P. : “Bitch, I’ll kill you.” Terry grabbed T.P. by her throat with both hands and began squeezing. Unable to breathe, T.P. blacked out and woke up lying on the ground. T.P. had urinated on herself and was having trouble breathing. Terry told her to get up and follow him . F earing for her life , T.P. complied. Terry took T.P. to a parkin g lot behind a closed business and punched her at her temple with his fist , telling her she would die that night. Terry proceeded to kick T.P. multiple times, slapping her
, calling her

names, throwing landscaping gravel on her
, and spitting at her. Terry urinated on T.P.’s face and head
, and threatened her by saying: “I’ ll stab the shit out of you, ” while holding an opened knife in his hand.

¶4 Terry did not kill T.P., and T.P. was later examined by a forensic nurse
, who documented T.P.’s injuries. The nurse testified as an expert that 10 seconds of light pressure on the larynx will render a person unconscious , and 15 seconds of pressure on the carotid artery can result inSTATE v. TERRY Decision of the Court

3 loss of control of the bladder sphincter. Terry m ade statements to one of his family members acknowledging that he had assaulted T.P.

¶5 Terry was indicted on four counts: Kidnapping, a Class 2 felony (Count 1); Aggravated Assault, a Class 4 felony (Count 2 ); Aggravated Assault, a Class 3 dangerous felony (Count 3); and Assault , a Class 1 misdemeanor (Count 4). The State alleged that C ounts 1, 2 and 3 were domestic violence offenses and filed allegations of prior felony convictions and aggravating circumstances.

¶6 Terry was found competent to stand trial. The first tr i al ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach agreement on any of the four
counts. Terry’s s econd trial resulted in the jury deadloc ked concerning C ount 1 and the superior court declared a mistrial regarding that count. Count 1 was amended to a charge of Influencing a Witness, a Class 5 felony
, to which Terry later pled no contest

. ¶7 After a seven

- day trial , t he jury found Terry guilty of aggravated assault ( Count 2 ) and assault (Count 4)
, both domestic violence offense s. The jury acquitted Terry o n Count 3

. The superior court found Terry had six prior felony convictions and was therefore a Category 3 offender.

¶8 The court sentenced Terry to a n aggravated term of 11 years’ imprisonment on Count 2

. The court gave Terry credi t for 394 days of presentence incarceration. Regarding C ount 4, the s uperior court entered a terminal disposition of 394 days . On Count 1
, the court suspended the imposition of a sentence and placed Terry on probation for a period of 3 years beginning on his release from prison on Count 2

. Terry timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution
, as well as Arizona Revised Statutes (“ A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶9 We have re ad and considered counsel’s brief and have reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.

¶10 Terry was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects the superior court afforded Terry his constitutional and statutory rights, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the eviden ceSTATE v. TERRY Decision of the Court

4 presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. Terry ’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶11 Terry ’s convictions and sentences are af firmed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Terry ’ s representation in this appeal will end after inform ing Terry of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appro priate 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, Terry has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsid eration or petition for review.