STATE v. KPOU

No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0375.

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ARMSTRONG SAWI KPOU, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joel Feinman , Pima County Public Defender, Tucson, By Abigail Jensen , Assistant Public Defender, Counsel for Appellant.

Presiding Judge Vasquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Staring and Judge Howard concurred.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Armstrong Kpou was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, two-year terms of imprisonment.2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no "arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Kpou has not filed a supplemental brief.

¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. See State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2, 303 P.3d 76, 79 (App. 2013). The evidence presented at trial showed Kpou fought with two uniformed Tucson Police Department officers who had responded to a call that Kpou was "kicking in a door at a women's shelter." He knocked one to the ground and struck him in the face, and caused scrapes and abrasions to both officers and a laceration to the head of one officer. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-1204(A)(8)(a), (D).

¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Kpou's convictions and his sentences as corrected.

FootNotes


1. The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court.
2. In its minute entry the court deemed one count "slightly mitigated" and the other "slightly aggravated," but imposed the same sentence. At the sentencing hearing, however, the court was clear that each sentence was to be "a partially mitigated term of two years." We therefore order the minute entry corrected to reflect a "slightly mitigated" term on count three.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases