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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TREVOR BRENT BRADLEY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0138 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-125218-001

The Honorable Annielaurie Van Wie, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek

Counsel for Appellee

DuMond & Doran, PLLC, Phoenix

By Samantha Kelli DuMond

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 5-19-2020
STATE v. BRADLEY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Trevor Brent Bradley appeals his sentences for five felony 

counts of aggravated domestic violence. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Bradley was arrested for aggravated assault on January 22, 

2018, charged as a dangerous felony offense in CR2018-103980 (the 

“January 2018 Charge”). He pled not guilty, posted a $10,000 bond and was 

released on January 24.

¶3 Less than four months later, Bradley was arrested for beating 

his girlfriend while on release and pending trial on the January 2018 

Charge. On May 25, 2018, Bradley was charged with six more dangerous 

felony offenses arising from the most recent incident in CR2018-125218 (the 

“May 2018 Charges”), including five counts of aggravated domestic 

violence and one count of attempted aggravated assault. For sentencing 

enhancement purposes under A.R.S. § 13-708(D), the State alleged that 

Bradley committed the new offenses on felony release for the January 2018 

Charge. Bradley pled not guilty. 

¶4 A jury was empaneled in November 2018 to hear the May 

2018 Charges. The jury convicted Bradley on five counts of aggravated 

domestic violence but acquitted him on the attempted aggravated assault 

count. To prove the alleged sentencing enhancement under A.R.S. § 13-

708(D), the State introduced various documents from the January 2018 

Charge, including Bradley’s booking photo, release order and indictment. 

Bradley introduced no evidence or testimony in the enhancement phase,

but generally argued the State had not proven he committed the May 2018 

Charges while on release for the January 2018 Charge. The jury found the

grounds for enhancement. 

¶5 The court denied Bradley’s motion to set aside the 

enhancement under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20(b)(1), 

concluding that the booking photo, release order and indictment amounted 
STATE v. BRADLEY

Decision of the Court

3

to substantial evidence of Bradley’s felony release status. The court

sentenced Bradley to five concurrent eight-year prison terms for the

aggravated domestic violence convictions; each sentence included a twoyear enhancement under A.R.S. § 13–708(D) based on the jury’s finding that 

Bradley committed the offenses while on felony release.

¶6 Bradley timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 

6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-

4031 and -4033(A)(3).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Bradley argues the State failed to prove he was on felony 

release when arrested for the May 2018 Charges. Section 13-708(D) directs 

the superior court to add “a term of imprisonment two years longer than 

would otherwise be imposed” on a defendant “who is convicted of 

committing any felony offense” while “released on bond . . . for a separate 

felony offense.” A jury must find the defendant’s “release status” beyond 

a reasonable doubt. State v. Large, 234 Ariz. 274, 279, ¶ 12 (App. 2014). The 

defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by moving for 

judgment of an unproven sentencing enhancement. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

20(b)(1). 

¶8 We review de novo the denial of a Rule 20 motion, State v. 

Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421, 461, ¶ 168 (2016), upholding the enhancement if 

substantial evidence supports it, State v. Garza, 216 Ariz. 56, 67-68, ¶ 52 

(2007). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such proof 

that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support

[the jury’s] conclusion.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990) (quoting 

State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419 (1980)).

¶9 Because substantial evidence supports the enhancement, we 

find no error. A rational juror could find the enhancement based on the 

January 2018 booking photo, release order and indictment. See Mathers, 165 

Ariz. at 66 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (“[T]he 

relevant question is whether . . . any rational trier of fact could have found 

[the aggravator] beyond a reasonable doubt.”). We will not reweigh the 

evidence on appeal, State v. Montes Flores, 245 Ariz. 303, 308, ¶ 23 (App. 

2018), which can include circumstantial evidence, State v. Landrigan, 176 

Ariz. 1, 4 (1993). 
STATE v. BRADLEY

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm Bradley’s sentences.