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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TIMOTHY WAYNE CLARK, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0482 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201900080 

The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee 

Law Office of Elizabeth M. Hale, Lakeside

By Elizabeth M. Hale

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 7-27-2021
STATE v. CLARK

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief

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

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Timothy 

Clark has advised this court that she has found no arguable questions of 

law and asks us to search the record for reversible fundamental error. A 

jury convicted Clark of one count of aggravated assault by domestic 

violence, a class 4 felony, and the superior court suspended his sentence 

and placed him on 3 years’ probation, including 120 days in jail with credit 

for one day served and eligible for work release. He was given an 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not done 

so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Clark’s conviction and the 

consequences imposed. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Clark. See State v. 

Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). In December 2018, J.W.1 traveled 

to the Tri-State Inn in Kingman, Arizona to visit Clark, with whom she had 

been in a relationship for six months. J.W. had been very sick with a high 

fever, body aches, and other flu-like symptoms and had mostly slept during

her first two days in Kingman.

¶3 On the morning of the third day, Clark woke J.W. and told her 

that things were not working out. J.W. interrupted Clark and told him that 

she needed to go to the hospital. He then rolled on top of her and choked 

her to the point that she could not breathe. J.W. squirmed and tried to get 

away but could not until Clark released her. The couple continued to argue, 

and Clark picked up J.W. and slammed her against his knee, also hitting 

1 In the interest of privacy for the victim and other witnesses not 

involved in the alleged crime, abbreviations are used.
STATE v. CLARK

Decision of the Court

3 

her in the face in the process. J.W. called 911 and Clark went to the room 

next door where his brother had been staying.

¶4 While J.W. was packing her things, Clark returned to the 

room. J.W. told him to leave the room and called 911 a second time. Clark 

attempted to leave the Inn, but a Kingman police officer stopped him at the 

parking lot exit. Clark told the officer that J.W. had fought him when he 

told her it was not working out between the two of them and that he had 

held her down with his hands, motioning to his upper clavicle.

¶5 When the officer interviewed J.W., she appeared stunned. She

was holding her ribcage and had abrasions on her neck and a bruise 

beginning to form on her right cheek bone. She told the officer that Clark

had snapped when she told him that she needed to go to the hospital. Clark 

was arrested and charged with aggravated assault by domestic violence 

and disorderly conduct by domestic violence, the latter of which was 

dismissed with prejudice before trial.

¶6 In a pretrial hearing, Clark objected to the use of Zoom and 

other videoconferencing methods. In July of 2020, the superior court held 

an evidentiary hearing on the issue and denied Clark’s motion. Both this 

court and our supreme court declined jurisdiction in special action review.

¶7 After resolution of the special actions, a two-day jury trial was 

held. Clark, the attorneys, the witnesses, the superior court judge, and court 

personnel were physically present in the courtroom. During jury selection, 

twenty-nine prospective jurors were present, twelve of which appeared by 

video through Zoom. During trial, all participants including jurors were 

physically present in the courtroom. At the close of the State’s case in chief, 

Clark unsuccessfully moved for a judgment of acquittal. The defense 

presented Clark’s brother as its sole witness and then rested.

¶8 The superior court heard argument whether it should give a 

flight or concealment jury instruction requested by the State. The court 

found that because Clark returned to the room a second time and left after 

J.W. told him she was calling the police again, a jury could infer from the 

facts that the defendant left the scene in a manner to avoid law enforcement

officials. The court gave a modified instruction, explaining that in 

determining if the State met its burden, the jury “may consider any 

evidence of the defendant’s running away, together with all the other 

evidence in the case. Running away after a crime has been committed does 

not by itself prove guilt.”
STATE v. CLARK

Decision of the Court

4 

¶9 The jury found Clark guilty of aggravated assault by domestic 

violence. The superior court suspended the imposition of sentence and 

placed Clark on three years of probation. It also required Clark to serve 120 

days of jail time with work release eligibility. Clark timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶10 We have reviewed the record for reversible fundamental

error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; see also State v. Smith, 171 

Ariz. 501 (App. 1992). The record reflects that the superior court afforded 

Clark all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings 

were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Clark was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the 

proceedings against him. No jury instruction was given in error or 

prejudiced Clark. The sentence imposed was within the statutory 

guidelines. We affirm Clark’s conviction and sentence.

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Clark’s conviction and 

the consequences imposed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel 

shall inform Clark of the status of this appeal and his future options. 

Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an 

issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition 

for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On this court’s 

own motion, Clark has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if 

he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.