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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

WADE EUGENE BRADFORD, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0515

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-048445-001

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

The Hopkins Law Office PC, Tucson

By Cedric Martin Hopkins

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BRADFORD

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Wade Bradford appeals his convictions and sentences for one 

count each of first degree murder and aggravated assault. After searching 

the entire record, Bradford’s defense counsel has identified no arguable 

question of law that is not frivolous. Therefore, in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), 

defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. 

Bradford was afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria 

persona but declined to do so. After reviewing the record, we find no error. 

Accordingly, Bradford’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In early 2010, Natalie A. began a romantic relationship with

Kevin M., and the two moved in together. In April 2010, Natalie admitted 

she still had feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Bradford, with whom she had an 

on-again, off-again relationship since January 2009. Bradford thereafter 

confessed his love for Natalie and desire to marry her and gave her an 

ultimatum to decide between him and Kevin. On May 22, 2010, Bradford 

picked up Natalie and her belongings from the home she shared with 

Kevin, after which the two traveled together out-of-state. 

¶3 When Natalie returned to Arizona on May 28, 2010, she 

reinitiated her relationship with Kevin. Bradford called and told Kevin 

“don’t ruin this for me,” but Kevin cursed at Bradford and warned him to 

keep his distance or Kevin would “kick his ass.” Nonetheless, when Kevin 

and Natalie went to the hotel where Bradford was staying so Natalie could 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s 

verdicts, with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant. 

State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. 

Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)).
STATE v. BRADFORD

Decision of the Court

3

pick up some of her belongings, Kevin parked around the corner and 

waited outside to avoid a confrontation. 

¶4 The following day, Natalie arranged with Bradford to retrieve 

the remainder of her belongings. Kevin and Natalie drove separate cars to 

a condominium in Tempe that was owned by Bradford and used to operate 

his massage business. Kevin and Natalie arrived out front shortly after 9:00 

p.m. When no one responded at the front door, Natalie called Bradford, 

who advised he was on his way. Bradford appeared from around the 

corner, saw Kevin and Natalie, pointed to the back, and directed them to 

the garage. Bradford entered the front door of the condo, and Kevin and 

Natalie moved their cars into the alley, closer to the garage. 

¶5 After a few more minutes, the garage door opened, and 

Natalie walked toward her belongings, which were stacked against the wall

in the otherwise empty two-car garage. Bradford entered the garage from

a door leading inside the condo and approached Natalie as if to help her. 

Meanwhile, Kevin walked to his car to get a suitcase. 

¶6 According to Kevin, when he returned with the suitcase, he

saw Bradford turn toward Natalie, lift his right hand to point a gun at the 

back of her head, and pull the trigger. Bradford then turned the gun toward 

Kevin. Kevin tried to run away but dropped the suitcase, tripped, scraped 

his leg, and fell in the bushes nearby. Bradford chased Kevin around the 

corner, found him face down in the bushes, pointed the gun at his head, 

and said “stay down.” Bradford then lowered the gun, turned, and walked 

down the alley adjacent to the garage. 

¶7 Kevin immediately called 9-1-1. When police officers 

responded at approximately 9:20 p.m., Kevin flagged them down,

exclaimed, “She’s dead. He fucking shot her in the back of the head,” and 

pointed to a nearby garage. Inside, the officers found Natalie’s body lying

face up with blood coming from her head and mouth. She was pronounced 

dead at the scene. 

¶8 The suitcase Kevin dropped was found outside adjacent to an 

area of landscaping that appeared to have been trampled. A zippered 

holster containing a Ruger brand ammunition magazine containing live .45 

caliber ammunition for a semiautomatic weapon was found on the floor 

among Natalie’s belongings. A spent shell casing from a .45 caliber 

handgun was discovered in the alley outside the garage; the casing was 

stamped with “Winchester .45 auto.” Although the interior of the condo 
STATE v. BRADFORD

Decision of the Court

4

was sparsely furnished, officers found an inflatable bed in the living room, 

surrounded by personal items including Bradford’s debit card. 

¶9 Kevin gave the police Bradford’s name and description and 

identified Bradford as the shooter in a photo lineup. Two days later, 

Bradford was arrested without incident at a local restaurant. Bradford 

admitted he had a .45 caliber handgun in the trunk of his vehicle, which he 

identified for the arresting officers. Inside the vehicle, law enforcement 

officers found a wallet containing a driver’s license and credit card issued 

to Bradford, a cell phone belonging to Bradford, several foldable massage 

tables, and a laptop-sized case containing several large knives, a stun gun, 

multiple boxes of ammunition, and a bill of sale for the handgun issued to 

Bradford. The officers also found a Ruger .45 caliber semiautomatic 

handgun containing three rounds of live jacketed hollow-point 

ammunition with the same “Winchester .45 auto” stamp found on the 

casing discovered outside of the condo.

¶10 Bradford was thereafter charged with one count of first 

degree murder of Natalie and one count of aggravated assault against 

Kevin. At trial, the medical examiner testified Natalie died within two 

minutes of being shot at the base of the skull and the wound characteristics 

were consistent with Kevin’s memory of the events. The lack of exit wound 

was also consistent with the jacketed hollow-point bullets found in the 

handgun recovered from Bradford’s vehicle. Both the shell casing 

recovered from the scene and a bullet fragment recovered from Natalie’s 

head were determined to be of the same caliber and type as those found in 

the handgun. And DNA testing indicated Bradford was a major 

contributor to DNA found on the magazine removed from the handgun. 

¶11 At the close of the State’s evidence, Bradford’s counsel made 

an unsuccessful motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Arizona Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 20. Bradford testified in his defense. 

¶12 According to Bradford, he was “fine” with Natalie’s decision 

to move back in with Kevin because he had never wanted a long-term 

relationship with her. However, because Kevin had previously threatened 

to “beat and kill” him, Bradford took his gun from the trunk of his car when 

he met Kevin and Natalie at the condo. After meeting Kevin and Natalie

out front and directing them to the garage, Bradford opened the garage 

door from the inside. He did not see Kevin or Natalie waiting there, walked 

toward a file cabinet near Natalie’s belongings, and began to remove the 

gun from the case “just in case anything went wrong.” While he was 

bending down to unzip the case, Bradford “saw Kevin coming at [him]”
STATE v. BRADFORD

Decision of the Court

5

from behind and fumbled with the gun, adding for the first time on crossexamination that Kevin “collided” with his right hand and arm, and 

possibly the gun, during the event. Bradford then chased Kevin out of the 

garage. After finding Kevin prone in the bushes, Bradford panicked and 

ran. 

¶13 Bradford testified it was only after leaving the scene that it 

occurred to him “the gun had gone off” and Kevin was on the ground 

outside the garage because he had been shot. Although he purported to be 

concerned about Kevin, Bradford planned to wait out the Memorial Day 

weekend “to reverse engineer everything” before he approached police 

about his involvement. Bradford presented evidence that the lighting was 

poor in the garage and maintained he never saw Natalie during these 

events and was not aware she had been shot until after his arrest. 

¶14 On rebuttal, the case agent testified Bradford’s version of the 

events was inconsistent with both his prior police interview and the 

physical evidence at the scene. Nor did she find Bradford’s reaction, upon 

being informed of Natalie’s death, was genuine. 

¶15 The jury found Bradford guilty as charged. Bradford 

knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to an aggravation hearing and 

admitted the crimes were dangerous offenses, involved the use of a 

dangerous instrument, and caused physical and emotional harm to the 

victims. After a mitigation hearing, Bradford was sentenced as a 

dangerous, non-repetitive offender to natural life for first-degree murder, 

followed by a slightly aggravated term of ten years for aggravated assault. 

Bradford was also given credit for 1,866 days of presentence incarceration. 

Bradford timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona 

Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1),2 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶16 Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz.

at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any 

prejudicial error.”). A person is guilty of first degree murder if, 

“[i]ntending or knowing that the person’s conduct will cause death, the 

person causes the death of another person . . . with premeditation.” A.R.S. 

§ 13-1105(A)(1). A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he 

 

2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s 

current version.
STATE v. BRADFORD

Decision of the Court

6

“[i]ntentionally plac[es] another person in reasonable apprehension of 

imminent physical injury” while “us[ing] a deadly weapon or dangerous 

instrument.” A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(2), -1204(A)(2). Based upon the record, 

sufficient evidence was presented upon which a jury could determine 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Bradford murdered Natalie with 

premeditation and committed aggravated assault against Kevin.

¶17 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Bradford was represented by 

counsel at all stages of the proceedings, except for the period between May 

2013 and October 2013 during which he knowingly and voluntarily waived 

his right to counsel but retained the assistance of advisory counsel. 

Bradford was present at all critical stages including the entire trial and the 

verdict. The jury was properly comprised of twelve jurors, and the record 

shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23; A.R.S. 

§ 21-102(A); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). At sentencing, Bradford was given an 

opportunity to speak, and the trial court stated on the record the evidence 

and materials it considered and the factors it found in imposing sentences. 

See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10(b). Additionally, the sentences imposed 

were within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A), -711(A), -751(A), 

-752(A).3 

CONCLUSION

¶18 Bradford’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. Defense 

counsel’s obligations pertaining to Bradford’s representation in this appeal 

have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Bradford of the 

outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel 

finds an issue appropriate for submission to our supreme court by petition 

for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).

 

3 When the underlying crimes occurred, the trial court had discretion 

to impose upon a person convicted of first degree murder “a sentence of life 

or natural life,” with the former leaving open the possibility of release after 

twenty-five years. See A.R.S. §§ 13-751 (2009), -752(A) (2009). Following 

the 2012 amendments, a person convicted of first degree murder who is at 

least eighteen years of age must be sentenced to imprisonment for the 

remainder of his “natural life,” unless the crime is classified as felony 

murder. See H.B. 2373, 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 207, § 3 (2d Reg. Sess.).
STATE v. BRADFORD

Decision of the Court

7

¶19 Bradford has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 31.19(a). Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Bradford 

thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion 

for reconsideration.