State v. Visconti, 052820 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2019-0159
|Docket Nº:||2 CA-CR 2019-0159|
|Opinion Judge:||EPPICH, PRESIDING JUDGE|
|Party Name:||The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Peter Joseph Visconti IV, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant|
|Judge Panel:||Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.|
|Case Date:||May 28, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20175296001 The Honorable Jeffrey T. Bergin, Judge The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
EPPICH, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 Following his waiver of the right to a jury trial and a subsequent bench trial, appellant Peter Visconti IV was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, mitigated, six-year prison sentence. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Visconti has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding of guilt, see A.R.S. §§...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP