NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

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 C ounsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECI SION
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 (196 9), asking this Court to search th e 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 n o error and
, therefore
, affirm Yancy’s conviction and sentence.
Background 1

¶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 pass ing through the wall of Yancy’s bedro om, through two bathrooms, and continu ing through to his mother’s bedroom
, where his mother was sitting on her bed watching television

. The bullet e xited his mother’s bedroom wall
, after passing w ithin 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 O n the State’s motion, the trial court later amended the charge to a class one misdemeanor. Yancy then reject ed the S tate’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 indic ated.STATE v. YANCY Decision of the Court

3 a class two misdemeanor
, ple a d ed not guilty
, and the matter proceeded to a trial to the court

. ¶5 During trial, Yanc y testified his father had instru cted him how to clean his rifle ; thereby admitt ing he kn e w how to do so. Yancy further acknowledged that proper gun handling procedure required not pull ing a trigger in side 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 kn ow 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 gue ss

– 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

- dange rous 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 intenti onal, 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 I n order to convict a per son of endangerment, the S tate must pro ve 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 enda ngerment, 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 t he crime of endangerment is “ a felony only if it involved substantial risk of death to another”). Although a conviction under § 13

- 1201 requires the S tate to prove the defendant placed the victim at a substantial risk of physical injury, reckless endangerment does not require that th e 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 occ ur,” and that risk is “ of such nature and degree that disregard of such risk constitutes a gross deviati o n from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” A.R.S. § 13

- 105(10)(c).

¶9 Based up on our review of the recor d, 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
, 16 5 Ariz. 64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (citation omitted). G iven the common understanding of the inherent dangerousness of guns as well as his prior experience with th is specific rifle, Yancy was aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk inherent i n p ull ing 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 b efor e beginning to clean it, he nonetheless p ull ed 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 tr ajectory of the bullet indicate d 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 U nited S tates v. Hernandez

- Castel lanos
, 287 F

. 3d 876, 879 (9 th 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 co unsel’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. Se e 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.