State v. Estrada, 1 CA-CR 20-0577

Estrada and his four young children entered a rideshare vehicle; Estrada demanded the driver "go" and then grabbed the steering wheel, attempting to steer onto light rail tracks.
When the driver stopped, Estrada stabbed him multiple times with scissors; the driver suffered at least 12 puncture wounds, bled profusely, and required emergency surgery.
Police arrived, arrested Estrada, and found methamphetamine on him. Officers testified stabbing with scissors can cause death or serious injury.
Estrada testified he was struck by the driver and stabbed to protect himself and his children; he requested a jury instruction on non-deadly (mere) physical-force self-defense.
The trial court refused the mere-physical-force instruction and instead instructed only on deadly-force justification; the jury convicted Estrada of theft of means of transportation, aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, possession of dangerous drugs, and four counts of child abuse (not guilty of armed robbery).
The court imposed an aggregate 60-year sentence; Estrada appealed arguing instructional error and that consecutive child-abuse sentences produced an unjust/excessive aggregate term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Estrada)	Held
Whether the court erred by refusing to give a mere-physical-force self-defense instruction	Deadly-force instruction was appropriate because the evidence showed deadly physical force was used (stabbing with scissors; serious injury).	Estrada argued the jury should also be instructed on non-deadly physical-force justification based on his testimony.	No error; evidence established deadly physical force, so mere-physical-force instruction not supported.
Whether the aggregate 60-year sentence (consecutive child-abuse counts) is excessive/should be amended	Sentence is lawful and justified by prior felonies, jury-found aggravators, nature and circumstances of offenses.	Consecutive sentences for child-abuse counts produce an unjustly excessive aggregate sentence; request concurrent sentences or resentencing.	Affirmed; aggregate sentence does not clearly appear excessive and appellate reduction is unwarranted.

State v. Fontes, 195 A r i z . 229 (App. 1998) (view facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment)
State v. Carson, 243 Ariz. 463 (2018) (standards for reviewing refusal to instruct on self-defense)
State v. Almeida, 238 Ariz. 77 (App. 2015) (appellate courts independently assess whether evidence supports a justification instruction)
State v. Hussain, 189 Ariz. 336 (App. 1997) (multiple stab wounds can constitute deadly physical force)
State v. Linsner, 105 Ariz. 488 (1970) (appellate power to reduce sentences should be exercised with caution)