State v. Wilson

Court of Appeals of Arizona

State v. Wilson

661 P.2d 659, 135 Ariz. 395, 1983 Ariz. App. LEXIS 402

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJanuary 6, 1983

DocketNo. 2 CA-CR 2787

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 661 P.2d 659 (State v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Wilson, 661 P.2d 659, 135 Ariz. 395, 1983 Ariz. App. LEXIS 402 (Ark. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HATHAWAY, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of arson of an occupied structure, an offense of a dangerous nature. A mitigated sentence of seven years’ imprisonment was imposed. This appeal has been processed in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Appellant has filed a supplemental brief in which he contends that his incarceration is punishing his family because he cannot support them.

The only arguable issue presented by counsel is that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury that “fire” could qualify as a dangerous instrument under A.R.S. § 13-604(G). However, A.R.S. § 13-105(7), as amended, defines “dangerous instrument” as “anything that under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” A fire falls within the statutory definition and therefore the trial court did not err in submitting the allegation of dangerousness to the jury.

The record discloses no fundamental error.

Affirmed.

HOWARD, C.J., and BIRDSALL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

HATHAWAY, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of arson of an occupied structure, an offense of a dangerous nature. A mitigated sentence of seven years’ imprisonment was imposed. This appeal has been processed in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Appellant has filed a supplemental brief in which he contends that his incarceration is punishing his family because he cannot support them.

The only arguable issue presented by counsel is that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury that “fire” could qualify as a dangerous instrument under A.R.S. § 13-604(G). However, A.R.S. § 13-105(7), as amended, defines “dangerous instrument” as “anything that under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” A fire falls within the statutory definition and therefore the trial court did not err in submitting the allegation of dangerousness to the jury.

The record discloses no fundamental error.

Affirmed.

HOWARD, C.J., and BIRDSALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 P.2d 659, 135 Ariz. 395, 1983 Ariz. App. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wilson-arizctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack