Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department A
Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. P1300CR201100590 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Craig W. Soland, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee
Thomas K. Kelly, P.C. Prescott By Thomas K. Kelly Goswick Law, P.L.L.C. Prescott By Birthe S. Goswick Attorneys for Appellant
JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge.
¶1 Khalil Kamal Hattar appeals from his convictions and sentences for two counts of disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon, and one count each of misconduct involving weapons and child abuse. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In accordance with applicable standards of appellate review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences in support of the jury verdict. State v. Manzanedo, 210 Ariz. 292, 293, ¶ 3, 110 P.3d 1026, 1027 (App. 2005).
¶3 The State charged Hattar with numerous criminal offenses arising out of a physical altercation at home with his wife in the presence of their daughters. During the fight, Hattar aimed a rifle at his wife and one of his daughters. Hattar also handled other firearms that were located in the home.
¶4 The jury found Hattar guilty of two counts of disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon, class six dangerous felonies and domestic violence offenses ("Count 1" and "Count 2"); one count of misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony ("Count 3"); and one count of child abuse, a class six felony and domestic violence offense ("Count 4") . The court imposed a 1.5-year term of imprisonment for Count 3 to be served consecutively to concurrent 2-year terms of imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2. For Count 4, Hattar received seven years' supervised probation upon his release from incarceration. Hattar timely appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010) and -4033(A) (2010).
Evidence of Citizenship Offered to Disprove Prohibited Possessor Status
¶5 Hattar was charged with weapons misconduct under A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4) (Supp. 2012) for carrying a deadly weapon as a prohibited possessor. Hattar challenges the court's denial of his request to present evidence that he became a naturalized citizen in 2007 in defense of the prohibited possessor charge. Hattar argued such evidence would demonstrate that his right to possess firearms had been restored. The court precluded the evidence, reasoning it was irrelevant. Based on the record before the trial court, we agree.
¶6 We review a superior court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. State v.Tucker, 215 Ariz. 298, 314, ¶ 58, 160 P.3d 177, 193 (2007). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the reasons given by the court for its decision are clearly untenable, legally incorrect, or amount to a denial of justice." State v. Childress, 222 Ariz. 334, 338, ¶ 9, 214 P.3d 422, 426 (App. 2009). To be admissible, evidence must be relevant, and all relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by rule or law. Ariz. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant "if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence ...