State v. Mathews - 130 Ariz. 46, 633 P.2d 1039 (Ct. App. 1981)

Rule:

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1203 provides, in pertinent part: Assault; classification. A person commits assault by: intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person. 

Facts:

When the state sought to terminate Denny Mathews probation, he was incarcerated in county jail. While there, he was involved in incidents that lead to his indictment for additional charges, which were consolidated for trial. Mathews pled guilty to all the charges and admitted the probation violations. For one conviction, he was sentenced to probation. Mathews appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Navajo County (Arizona), which revoked his probation based on his guilty plea to injury to a public jail, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-130; arson of an occupied structure, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1701 and 13-1704; aggravated assault on a peace officer, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1203(A)(2), (3) and 13-1204(A)(5); and imposed sentence.

Issue:

Did Mathews’ action of faking a striking blow to Officer Hayes with his arm a violation of A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(2)?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the convictions and the jail sentences but remanded with instructions on the sentence of probation. There was sufficient evidence to support his plea to the charges of injury to a public jail and aggravated assault to a police officer based on evidence that he stuffed the lock of a jail cell with toilet paper to the point that it could not be opened, and threw urine on a police officer. The sentence of probation violated Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901(G) because it ordered him to pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the probation officer instead of being determined by the trial court when sentence was imposed. Imposition of probation concurrent with imprisonment did not violate Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901(H), however the trial court failed to designate the effective date of the probationary term.