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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

THOMAS EDWARD HEERING, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0385

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. V1300CR202080215

 V1300CR201980342

The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By David R. Cole

Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix

By Nicole Countryman

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-24-2022
STATE v. HEERING

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Thomas Edward Heering appeals his conviction and sentence 

for disorderly conduct. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 One evening in April 2020, state troopers pulled Heering over 

for driving a motorcycle with a suspended license plate. After also learning 

that Heering’s driver’s license had been revoked, the troopers called a tow 

truck to impound the motorcycle.

¶3 Tow truck driver A.F. arrived at the scene and observed 

Heering pull out a knife and flip it open. A.F. noticed the knife before the 

troopers did, and when he saw Heering pull out the knife, he backed up 

twenty to thirty feet and put his hand on the gun he was carrying. A.F. told 

the friend he was with to back up as well. The troopers drew their weapons

and ordered Heering to drop the knife and get on the ground. He 

immediately dropped the knife and eventually got on the ground.

¶4 The State charged Heering with three counts of aggravated 

assault against a peace officer, class 2 dangerous felonies (counts 1-3), two 

counts of disorderly conduct, class 6 dangerous felonies (counts 4 and 5), 

driving on a revoked license, a class 1 misdemeanor (count 6), and 

misconduct involving weapons, a class 4 felony (count 7). Heering plead 

guilty to count 6, and the superior court severed the trial of count 7.

¶5 A jury convicted Heering of counts 1, 2, and 5 and acquitted 

him of counts 3 and 4. The superior court sentenced Heering to five years 

in prison for count 1, five years in prison for count 2, and 3.75 years in 

prison for count 5, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. 

Heering timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona 

Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(1).
STATE v. HEERING

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶6 Heering argues his conviction for count 5 should be vacated 

because the superior court erred by denying his Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure (“Rule”) 20 motion. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1) (“After the 

close of evidence on either side, and on motion or on its own, the court must 

enter a judgment of acquittal on any offense charged in an indictment, 

information, or complaint if there is no substantial evidence to support a 

conviction.”). According to Heering, the disorderly conduct charge failed 

because there was no evidence that he “held the knife recklessly with the

intent to disturb A.F.’s peace, or with the knowledge of doing so.” See

A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(6) (“A person commits disorderly conduct if, with 

intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or 

with knowledge of doing so, such person . . . [r]ecklessly handles, displays 

or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.”); A.R.S. § 13-

105(10)(c) (“‘Recklessly’ means . . . that a person is aware of and consciously 

disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or 

that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree 

that disregard of such risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard 

of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”).

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

West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). Substantial evidence is “proof that 

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

conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. at ¶ 16 

(citation omitted). “When reasonable minds may differ on inferences 

drawn from the facts, the case must be submitted to the jury, and the trial 

judge has no discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.” State v. Lee, 189 

Ariz. 590, 603 (1997). We view the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the verdicts, and resolve all conflicts in the evidence against the 

defendant. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013); State v. Bustamante, 

229 Ariz. 256, 258, ¶ 5 (App. 2012). “[I]n reviewing the sufficiency of the 

evidence, we do not distinguish circumstantial from direct evidence.” State 

v. Borquez, 232 Ariz. 484, 487, ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

¶8 Here, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. The 

State provided testimony that when A.F. saw Heering pull out the knife, he 

backed himself and his friend twenty to thirty feet away and put his hand 

on the gun he was carrying. A.F. testified that he put his hand on his gun 

in response to seeing Heering’s knife, and that the entire incident disturbed

his “peace and quiet.” Although Heering did not make any gestures with 

the knife or say anything while holding it, those facts do not compel a 

conclusion that the evidence was not substantial, as Heering suggests. Nor 
STATE v. HEERING

Decision of the Court

4

does it matter that A.F. was not “in the line of fire” or within striking 

distance of the knife. The evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that 

Heering, “with intent to disturb the peace . . . or with knowledge of doing 

so,” recklessly handled or displayed the knife in A.F.’s presence. See A.R.S. 

§ 13-2904(A).

¶9 Because substantial evidence reasonably supported a 

conclusion that Heering committed disorderly conduct, the superior court 

properly denied Heering’s Rule 20 motion.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, Heering’s conviction and sentence 

are affirmed.