State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr.
233 Ariz. 112
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Armando Pena Jr. convicted by jury of kidnapping, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and three counts of aggravated assault causing temporary and substantial disfigurement for multiple knife/sharp-object wounds to a victim on Nov. 12, 2011.
- Victim suffered a 3–4 inch laceration to the leg into muscle, a 3-inch full-thickness laceration across the left palm exposing muscle, and a 1–2 cm puncture wound to the abdomen exposing fatty tissue.
- Trial court sentenced Pena to concurrent prison terms (longest 10.5 years for kidnapping) and entered a criminal restitution order (CRO) converting fines/fees/assessments to a CRO while suspending accrual of penalties during incarceration.
- On appeal Pena challenged sufficiency of evidence for two of the three disfigurement-based aggravated assault counts (hand and abdomen wounds) and challenged the validity of the CRO.
- The court reviewed statutory terms “disfigurement” and “substantial disfigurement,” applied dictionary-based meanings and precedent, and considered whether each charged wound alone supported the aggravated-assault enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether each charged wound supported conviction for aggravated assault (temporary but substantial disfigurement) | State: each wound sufficiently impaired visible appearance and lasted long enough | Pena: hand and abdominal wounds did not substantially affect visible appearance; abdomen especially covered by clothing | Hand wound: sufficient; Abdomen wound: insufficient — conviction reduced to assault |
| Whether CRO entered at sentencing was proper | State conceded error | Pena argued CRO was improper because entered before sentence/probation expired | CRO vacated (illegal to enter CRO before sentence/probation expiration) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garcia, 138 Ariz. 211 (applying definition of disfigurement as impairment of visible appearance)
- Funk v. Indus. Comm’n, 167 Ariz. 466 (interpreting disfigurement to involve marring appearance and considering duration)
- State v. McKague, 262 P.3d 1225 (Wash.) (defining “substantial” as considerable in amount/value and guiding interpretation)
- People v. McKinnon, 937 N.E.2d 524 (N.Y.) (explaining that “substantial” requires harm greater than minimal disfigurement)
- State v. Lopez, 231 Ariz. 561 (holding imposition of CRO before sentence/probation expiration is illegal)