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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GREGORY JUSTIN HARDY, JR., 

Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0583

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201900689

The Honorable Christopher L. Kottke, Judge, Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Offices of Gonzales & Poirier, PLLC, Flagstaff

By Antonio J. Gonzales

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 2-15-2022
STATE v. HARDY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

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

¶1 Gregory Justin Hardy, Jr. appeals his convictions and 

sentences for second degree burglary, attempted robbery, aggravated 

assault and six counts of disorderly conduct. After searching the record 

and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Hardy’s counsel 

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and 

State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court to search the record for 

fundamental error. Hardy had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief 

but did not. After reviewing the record, we affirm Hardy’s convictions and 

sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On a spring night in 2019, Hardy entered the unlocked front 

door of the victims’ residence, where he encountered N.P., grabbed her arm 

and demanded money. Hardy was drunk. N.P.’s husband rushed to help. 

He screamed at Hardy to release N.P. and leave the home. Hardy let her

go. She ran from the room but soon returned with a handgun, which she 

pointed at Hardy and threatened to shoot unless he left the house. Hardy 

lifted his hands above his head, said he wanted to shake N.P.’s hand and 

took a step towards her. She fired the gun at the ground. Hardy would not 

leave, so she opened fire, twice striking Hardy in the left leg. 

¶3 Hardy fled the house. He had friends waiting outside in a 

white truck, including Troy Redmond, who picked him up and drove to 

Redmond’s home. Hardy passed out in transit, bleeding profusely. 

¶4 The Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office received 911 calls from 

the Perez and Redmond homes. Sheriff’s deputies found and arrested 

Hardy outside Redmond’s home. He was lying on the ground and covered 

in blood. 

¶5 A grand jury indicted Hardy for second-degree burglary, 

attempted robbery, aggravated assault and six counts of disorderly 

conduct—one count for each person in the Perez house at the time of the 
STATE v. HARDY

Decision of the Court

3

crime, including N.P. and her husband, their daughter and son-in-law, and 

two grandchildren. Prosecutors also alleged prior felony convictions under 

A.R.S. § 13-703.

¶6 A six-day jury trial was held in September 2020. The jury 

found Hardy guilty on all counts, and found two aggravating 

circumstances: emotional impact to the victims and their family and 

pecuniary gain. Before sentencing, the superior court found that Hardy had 

at least two historical prior felonies, making him a category 3 repetitive 

offender. But the court also found mitigating factors, including family 

trauma, family support, loss of children, drug dependence and ongoing 

medical issues. After balancing the aggravating circumstances and 

mitigating factors, the court sentenced Hardy to the minimum possible 

sentence on each charge.

¶7 Hardy 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 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find 

none. Hardy was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court 

afforded Hardy all his constitutional and statutory rights, and the 

proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the 

evidence presented at trial and summarized above was enough to support 

the jury’s verdicts. Hardy’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by 

law, with sufficient credit given for presentence incarceration. We find no 

error on this record. 

¶9 Hardy’s counsel asks us to correct the “Judgment and 

Sentencing [F]inding” to express that a minimum sentence was justified 

because the “mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors to 

justify the minimum sentence.” We decline the request because the 

superior court found no such thing. The court only said, “when I balance 

everything out, I agree . . . I don’t think you’re the worst of the worst . . . 

and I think a ten-year prison sentence is appropriate. That’s a minimum 

term.”
STATE v. HARDY

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶10 Hardy’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. Counsel’s 

obligations in this appeal will end once Hardy is informed of the outcome 

and his future options, unless counsel finds an issue appropriate for the 

Arizona Supreme Court’s review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-

85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Hardy has 30 days from the date of 

this decision to proceed with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition 

for review.