NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

WILLIE EVERETTE BUGGS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0660 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2012-164686-001

The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Commissioner

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Terry J. Adams

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BUGGS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Willie Everette Buggs timely appeals from his conviction 

and sentence for assault, a class 1 misdemeanor. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

(“A.R.S.”) § 13-1203(A)(1), (B) (2010). After searching the record on appeal 

and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Buggs’s 

counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 

P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental 

error. This court granted counsel’s motion to allow Buggs to file a 

supplemental brief in propria persona, but Buggs did not do so. After 

reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and therefore 

affirm Buggs’s conviction and sentence. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 On December 21, 2012, Buggs and his roommate, R.G., were 

drinking alcohol and playing cards when they began to argue. Both men 

were swearing and yelling at each other, and the argument escalated into 

a physical altercation. Although Buggs testified R.G. “took a swing at me” 

and he only hit R.G. with his fist four times defending himself, another 

witness testified R.G. had never attempted to hit Buggs, but rather Buggs 

had attacked R.G. and hit him with the blunt end of a box cutter as many 

as ten or 12 times. After the incident, R.G. went to the hospital and 

received staples and stitches in various parts of his head and face.

¶3 A grand jury indicted Buggs for felony aggravated assault 

under A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(2) (Supp. 2013) (assault with a deadly weapon 

or dangerous instrument). A jury convicted Buggs of the lesser included 

offense of assault under A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1) (causing any physical 

 

1We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the jury’s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Buggs. 

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

Decision of the Court

3

injury to another person), a misdemeanor. The superior court sentenced 

Buggs to 180 days incarceration, see A.R.S. § 13-707(A) (2010), with 180 

days presentence incarceration credit. 

DISCUSSION

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Buggs received a fair 

trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and 

was present at all critical stages.2 

¶5 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdict. The jury was properly comprised of eight members; and the 

court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charge, Buggs’s 

presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity 

of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a 

presentence report, Buggs was given an opportunity to speak at 

sentencing and did so, and his sentence was within the range of 

acceptable sentences for his offense.

¶6 We note, however, that in closing argument, but without any 

objection by defense counsel, the prosecutor improperly relied on matters 

that were not introduced in evidence. First, in discussing the trial 

evidence concerning blood splattering, the prosecutor referred to “basic 

physics” even though no evidence was presented to the jury about “basic 

physics.” Second, the prosecutor argued that electricians use box cutters 

in lieu of wire strippers to strip off the first inch or so of “Romex wire.” 

Yet, no evidence was presented to the jury about using box cutters in lieu 

of wire strippers or, for that matter, “Romex wire.” Third, the prosecutor 

asserted a particular witness, who had been a friend of Buggs, gave Buggs 

“a little nod” after his testimony. No evidence was presented to the jury, 

however, about this alleged nod.

¶7 The prosecutor’s reliance on these matters was improper. 

See generally State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, 402, ¶ 62, 132 P.3d 833, 846 

(2006) (impermissible prosecutorial vouching exists when prosecutor 

suggests information not presented to the jury supports the evidence).

 

2Buggs waived his presence at a July 11, 2013 pretrial 

hearing. At the hearing, the court entered scheduling orders for the 

submission of trial exhibits and proposed jury instructions and affirmed 

the prior custody orders and the trial date. 
STATE v. BUGGS

Decision of the Court

4

Although improper, based on our review of the record, the statements did 

not amount to fundamental, prejudicial error. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 

561, 568-69, ¶¶ 22-26, 115 P.3d 601, 608-09 (2005). 

CONCLUSION 

¶8 We decline to order briefing and affirm Buggs’s conviction 

and sentence.

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

pertaining to Buggs’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Buggs 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. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984).

¶10 Buggs has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court’s 

own motion, we also grant Buggs 30 days from the date of this decision to 

file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.