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Not for Publication -Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court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 Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-114702-001 The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge.
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix by Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals Section and Myles A. Braccio, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Phoenix by Paul J. Prato, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant.
PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge
¶1 Paul Levon Tiggs, II, appeals from his convictions and probation terms for attempted voyeurism and for stalking. Tiggs contends that the state did not present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. We disagree, and therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 A grand jury indicted Tiggs for stalking V.K. between March 17 and March 24, 2011, and for voyeurism with respect to V.K. on March 17, March 18, and March 24, 2011. Tiggs pled not guilty. Before the matter proceeded to a jury trial, the state amended the indictment's voyeurism counts to allege attempted voyeurism.
¶3 At trial, the state presented evidence of the following facts. On the nights of March 17, 18, and 24, 2011, V.K., wearing her sleeping attire of sweatpants and a tank top, sat at her computer desk in the bedroom of her third-floor apartment, facing a window overlooking her building's open-air stairs. The window's vertical blinds were partially closed so that V.K. could see out at an angle. V.K. intended that the blinds prevent others from seeing in, but a person standing at the window could see in at an angle. On each of the nights in question, V.K. saw activity at the window.
¶4 On the night of March 17, V.K. saw a shadow and the top of a man's head at the window. She exited her apartment and saw Tiggs squatting at the wall. She recognized Tiggs, who lived in a different building in the same apartment complex, because she often saw him exercising in the community gym across from her apartment and she had exchanged greetings with him a few times. Tiggs rose quickly and stated that V.K. had scared him. V.K. responded that Tiggs had scared her as well, and tried to hint that she wanted to know what he was doing by asking him several times if he was okay. Tiggs replied that he was fine and walked down the stairs. V.K. reported the incident to the complex's security officer that night and to the complex's manager the next morning.
¶5 On the night of March 18, V.K. saw eyes "creeping up" the window. V.K. called 911, but when the police arrived nobody was at the window.
¶6 On the night of March 24, the complex's security guard sat in the community gym with the lights off and watched V.K.'s apartment. From the gym, the security guard saw Tiggs walk up the stairs to V.K.'s apartment, get down on his hands and knees, and look through the window for a period of about fifteen minutes. The guard called the police. V.K. also called 911 after she noticed eyes at the window. Before the police arrived, she used her cell phone's camera and her front door's peephole to take a photograph that showed a person crouched by the window. V.K. recognized the person as Tiggs. When the police arrived, Tiggs ran from the window. The police chased Tiggs from V.K.'s building through the streets and eventually apprehended him.
¶7 At the close of the state's case-in-chief, Tiggs moved for judgments of acquittal. The court denied the motion. For his defense, Tiggs testified that he had been near V.K.'s apartment on the evenings of March 17 and March 24 because he had been walking and running through the complex for exercise. He denied ever stopping at V.K.'s window, and claimed that he ran from the police because he did not know who was chasing him.
¶8 After considering the evidence, the jury found Tiggs guilty of attempted voyeurism on March 17 and March 24, but not guilty of attempted voyeurism on March 18. The jury also found Tiggs guilty of stalking. The court entered judgment on the jury's verdicts, suspended the imposition of sentences, and placed Tiggs on concurrent ten-year probation terms for each conviction. Tiggs timely appeals. ...