Court Opinion

ID: 9906005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 19:02:17.619177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:03.849509
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                      LAZERIK WINFIELD, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0596
                              FILED 11-30-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2021-121980-001
                 The Honorable Michael C. Blair, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Zhivago Law PLLC, Phoenix
By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago
Counsel for Appellant

Lazerik Winfield, Buckeye
Appellant
                            STATE v. WINFIELD
                            Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

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

¶1             Lazerik Winfield appeals his convictions and sentences for
two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one count of
endangerment, one count of disorderly conduct with a weapon, and one
count of misconduct involving weapons. After searching the record and
finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Winfield’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. Winfield raises several issues in his supplemental pro
se brief. After carefully reviewing the record, we find no error.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2           Winfield fired two bullets inside a crowded bar in June 2021.
He struck one patron in the leg. A second patron was hit with bullet
fragments. Police arrested Winfield outside the bar and recovered the
weapon. He was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon,1 one count of endangerment, one count of disorderly
conduct with a weapon, and one count of misconduct involving weapons.

¶3            A seven-day jury trial began on October 31, 2022. Winfield
called no witnesses in his defense. The jury deliberated for less than one
day before finding Winfield guilty on all charges.

¶4             The jury found all but one count to be “dangerous” offenses
under A.R.S. § 13-704(A). The jury found four aggravating factors,
including that the (1) offenses involved the infliction of serious physical
injury; (2) offenses involved the use, threatened use, or possession of a
deadly weapon; (3) offenses involved physical, emotional, or financial harm
to the victims; and (4) offenses involved multiple victims in a single
incident.

1      Winfield was originally charged with three counts of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, but one count was later dismissed.

                                      2
                           STATE v. WINFIELD
                           Decision of the Court

¶5            Winfield testified during the sentencing phase and admitted
he had a prior gun-related felony conviction in Illinois. He was then
sentenced to eight years for each count of aggravated assault, two and a half
years for endangerment, two and a half years for disorderly conduct with a
weapon, and four and a half years for possession of a weapon as a
prohibited possessor. All of his sentences run concurrently. Winfield was
credited with 549 days of presentence incarceration credit.

¶6             Winfield 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)(1).

                              DISCUSSION

¶7            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. Winfield was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the
proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court
afforded Winfield all his constitutional and statutory rights, and the
proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings,
and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient
to support the jury’s verdicts. Winfield’s sentences fall within the range
prescribed by law, with sufficient credit given for presentence
incarceration.

¶8            Winfield raises several issues in his pro se brief. We examine
each in turn.

I.    Forensic Testing

¶9             Winfield argues his conviction should be reversed because
the police did not conduct enough forensic testing, adding that he was
misidentified. We discern no error. The record has “evidence that
reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Prosise v. Kottke, 249 Ariz. 75, 79, ¶ 21 (App.
2020) (citation omitted). Two bouncers testified. One bouncer saw Winfield
fire his gun inside the bar. A second bouncer saw Winfield run from the
bar with a gun. That bouncer chased Winfield and saw him ditch the gun
before tackling him to the ground. Video surveillance corroborated the
eyewitness testimony.

                                     3
                           STATE v. WINFIELD
                           Decision of the Court

II.    Credibility of Witnesses

¶10           Winfield next attacks the credibility of assorted witnesses, but
the jury weighs the credibility of witnesses at trial and we do not reweigh
that issue on appeal. State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. 324, 334, ¶ 38 (App.
2013). Winfield had the chance at trial to impeach and rebut witness
testimony.

¶11          Nor does the record show a witness was improperly
“coached” by the prosecution before testifying. Each witness was placed
under oath to testify truthfully, as required by Arizona Rule of Evidence
603.

III.   Impartial Jury

¶12            Winfield argues his jury was biased because it had no African-
American members. Defendants have no right to a jury composed in whole
or in part of their own race. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85 (1986). A
Batson challenge is unavailable because Winfield does not argue that
prospective jurors were unconstitutionally excluded from serving on his
jury based on race, and because Arizona law has not allowed peremptory
challenges since January 2022. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96.

¶13           Winfield next argues the jury had members who generally
believed that criminal defendants should testify in their own defense, but a
careful review of juror questionnaires and the voir dire transcript shows
that none of those prospective jurors were selected for the jury.

IV.    Double Jeopardy

¶14           Winfield argues that using a prior felony conviction as a
sentence aggravator violated double jeopardy. The Arizona Supreme Court
held it does not. State v. Mauro, 159 Ariz. 186, 209 (1988). Nor did the court
use Winfield’s prior conviction as a sentence aggravator. Winfield’s eight-
year concurrent sentences for aggravated assault were aggravated by four
factors found by the jury, with consideration given to Winfield’s youth and
remorse. Winfield was sentenced to the presumptive terms on all other
counts.

V.     Motive

¶15          Last, Winfield argues the State did not prove motive. But the
State was not required to prove motive, which is not an element of any of
the crimes charged. State v. Tutle, 58 Ariz. 116, 120 (1941).

                                      4
                           STATE v. WINFIELD
                           Decision of the Court

                              CONCLUSION

¶16           Winfield’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. Counsel’s
obligations in this appeal will end once Winfield is informed of the outcome
and his future options, unless 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 the court’s own motion,
Winfield has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed with a pro se
motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                        5