State v. Tran, 1 CA-CR 15-0764

On March 8, 2014, Tran went to his former employer’s nail salon to retrieve a final paycheck; an employee (victim) confronted him outside.
Tran shot the victim twice—once in the arm while standing and once in the chest after the victim fell; Tran admitted the shootings at trial.
Tran claimed he acted in self-defense, testifying the victim (allegedly taller and trained as a UFC fighter) struck him and he feared for his life; Tran had a permit to carry the weapon.
A jury convicted Tran of aggravated assault and disorderly conduct, found multiple aggravating factors and that both offenses were dangerous, and imposed a 7.5-year prison term (concurrent 2.25 years for disorderly conduct).
The trial court ordered restitution of $39,719.36 and credited Tran with 595 days of presentence incarceration; Tran appealed, and the appeals were consolidated.
Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no arguable appellate issues; the court conducted a full merits review and considered Tran’s supplemental brief claiming insufficient evidence and mischaracterized testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain convictions	State: evidence, including victim testimony and physical facts, supports convictions beyond a reasonable doubt	Tran: evidence insufficient; he was justified in using deadly force in self-defense and victim’s testimony unreliable	Court: reviewed de novo, concluded evidence was substantial and sufficient; no reversible error (convictions affirmed)
Jury instructions / lesser-included offense	State: proper instructions given, including self-defense and aggravation	Tran: argued (through counsel) that disorderly conduct was a lesser included offense of aggravated assault; requested review of testimony credibility	Court: declined lesser-included instruction after consideration; found instructions and aggravation-phase instructions legally correct and adequate
Competency, interpreter, and procedural regularity	State: proceedings complied with rules; Rule 11 competency evaluation conducted and Tran found competent	Tran: raised no successful challenge to competency, interpreter adequacy, or jury selection	Court: found no improprieties; Tran was represented by counsel throughout; interpreter present; Rule 11 complied with
Sentencing and restitution	State: sentence within statutory limits given jury-found aggravating factors	Tran: contested sentence and restitution as improper	Court: sentences and restitution order affirmed as within statutory bounds given aggravators

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel’s assertion of no meritorious appellate issues)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (Ariz. 1969) (procedural precedent cited regarding appellate counsel duties and review)
State v. Snider, 233 Ariz. 243 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of de novo review for sufficiency challenges)
State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 590 (Ariz. 1997) (courts do not retry cases or reweigh evidence on appeal)
State v. Piatt, 132 Ariz. 145 (Ariz. 1982) (jury discretion in assessing credibility and weighing evidence)
State v. Barger, 167 Ariz. 563 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (definition of sufficient evidence to support conviction)
State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004) (role of factfinder regarding credibility and proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Granville, 211 Ariz. 468 (Ariz. 2005) (requirements for correct jury instructions)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (Ariz. 1984) (post-appeal counsel obligations after Anders review)
State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579 (Ariz. 1997) (viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining a verdict)