Court Opinion

ID: 9838178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 16:08:39.969575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:01.868503
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                    ERIC STEIN ANDERSON, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0433
                               FILED 9-5-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2021-103033-001
           The Honorable Howard D. Sukenic, Judge (Retired)

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

Zhivago Law, Phoenix
By Kerrie M. Droban Zhivago
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. ANDERSON
                             Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1             Eric Stein Anderson timely filed his appeal in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
following his conviction for kidnapping and attempt to commit second
degree murder, both class 2 dangerous felonies (involving victim, Sarah),
and two counts of aggravated assault, a class 3 dangerous felony (involving
victims, Richard and Charlie respectively). We use pseudonyms to protect
the victims’ identities. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(i). Anderson had the
opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Anderson’s
counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question
of law that is not frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz.
530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999).

¶2            We must review the record for reversible error. Clark, 196
Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining the convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against
Anderson. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). Having reviewed the
record, we find no reversible error and affirm.

              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3             Sarah worked as the director of a non-profit organization
providing affordable housing for the homeless. Anderson was a resident in
her facility and was housed in a unit with two roommates. Due to ongoing
roommate problems, Sarah relocated Anderson into a four-bedroom house
where Anderson could have his own room. On January 23, 2021, after an
individual in a nearby unit tested positive for Methamphetamine, Sarah
and her coworkers, Richard and Charlie, along with another fellow
employee conducted random “walk-throughs” of the units.

¶4           When they reached Anderson in his unit, Sarah informed
Anderson that she was relocating him from the unit. Anderson stood,
walked towards the door, pulled out a ceramic knife, and attempted to slam
the door shut to trap Sarah in the room with him. As others tried to push

                                        2
                          STATE v. ANDERSON
                           Decision of the Court

open the door, Anderson attacked and stabbed Sarah in the neck. Once the
coworkers pried Sarah free, Anderson lunged at Sarah again. Charlie
blocked the blow and the knife plunged into his back. Richard was stabbed
near the eye and punched several times after he ran in to help Sarah. The
knife subsequently broke. Charlie, Sarah, and Richard all sustained injuries.

¶5             The coworker that came with the victims called police after
dragging Sarah by the back of her shirt to safety. Anderson expressed to
officers that he attempted to separate Sarah “because he did not want her
posse to interrupt him while he took her life.” Anderson was indicted on
one count of kidnapping, attempt to commit first degree murder, and two
counts of aggravated assault. The State alleged thirteen aggravating factors.

¶6           Anderson requested and received a mental health evaluation
pursuant to Rule 11.8(b) and mental health experts determined he was
competent to stand trial. At trial, Anderson moved for an acquittal under
Rule 20 regarding count two, attempted first-degree murder. The court
denied the motion.

¶7            Jurors found Anderson guilty as charged on all but count two,
finding instead that the State had met its burden as to the lesser included
offense, attempt to commit second degree murder. Anderson was
sentenced to the presumptive term of 10.5 years in prison on counts one
and two, and seven-and-one half years on counts three and four, all of the
sentences to run concurrently. Anderson received presentence credit of 606
days.

                              DISCUSSION

¶8            The record reflects that all proceedings were conducted in
compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. See State v.
Gomez, 27 Ariz. App. 248, 251 (1976) (citing Ariz. R. Crim. P. 1.2). Anderson
was present for all proceedings that he had not waived or refused to be
present for. Anderson was represented by counsel at all stages of the
proceedings. The record reveals sufficient evidence from which the jury
could determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Anderson was guilty of
kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, and two counts of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or deadly instrument. At
sentencing, Anderson had the opportunity to speak, although he did not do
so, and the court stated on the record the factors it considered in imposing
the sentence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. The superior court imposed a
sentence within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701-709.

                                     3
                          STATE v. ANDERSON
                           Decision of the Court

                              CONCLUSION

¶9            We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law
and find none. We therefore affirm Anderson’s conviction and resulting
sentence. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300–01.

¶10           Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Anderson’s
representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than
inform Anderson of the outcome of this appeal and his future options,
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 the court’s own motion, Anderson has
thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a
pro per motion for reconsideration. Anderson also has thirty days from the
date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for
review.

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

                                        4