THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24

(Not for Publication — Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

HOWE, Judge.

¶1 Joey Allen Jackson ("Jackson") appeals his misdemeanor conviction and sentence for criminal damage of property valued at $250 or less arguing the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson was not justified in attacking the victim and breaking his sunglasses. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On March 2, 2009, Jackson and his grandson went to get their hair cut. At the hair salon, Jackson and victim got into a physical altercation. The victim sustained two broken teeth, multiple bruises and scratches to his face, a bruise on his chest, and his sunglasses were broken. Jackson suffered no visible injuries.

¶3 The State charged Jackson with one count of aggravated assault, a class 4 felony, one count of criminal damage of property valued at $250 or less, a class 2 misdemeanor, and one count of disturbing the peace, a class 1 misdemeanor. The parties tried the felony charge to the jury and the two misdemeanor charges to the trial court. At trial, both parties presented differing stories of the events.

¶4 During the State's case, the victim testified that he was painting the men's restroom when Jackson approached him and asked him if he was alone. While the victim did not know Jackson personally, he recognized his name. Jackson looked out the rear of the building and then returned to the hair salon. Several minutes later, the victim heard a vehicle "pull up in the back" of the building. Jackson approached the victim and, in a "[v]ery demeaning" manner, made a disparaging comment about the victim's wife. After the two men had denigrated each other, Jackson punched the victim in the mouth, then in the right temple, and then continuously in the head and ribs. Stunned and unable to fight back, the victim unsuccessfully tried to put a ladder between himself and Jackson. Finally, after the salon owner, who had heard the commotion, yelled out, Jackson stopped punching the victim and left out the back of the building. During the attack, Jackson struck the victim's $140 sunglasses, which had been resting on top of his head. The sunglasses flew off the victim's head, and the right earpiece broke.

¶5 The State also presented the testimony of the salon owner and the responding police officer. The salon owner looked out when she heard the commotion and saw the two men "on the ground" with Jackson on top of the victim. When the officer arrived on the scene, he observed several scratches and bruises on the victim's right temple, an injury to the bridge of his nose, an abrasion on his forehead, and bruising on his chest. He also observed the broken sunglasses. He took pictures of the victim's injuries and the damage to the sunglasses, and interviewed both the victim and the salon owner. The officer then went to Jackson's home to interview him about the altercation. Jackson told the officer that he saw the victim working on the restroom and confronted him. Jackson said that he punched the victim only after the victim had pushed him. The officer observed no injuries on Jackson, and Jackson stated that he did not have any injuries. The officer then arrested Jackson. At the close of the State's case, Jackson moved for a judgment of acquittal on all three charges. The court denied the motion.

¶6 In defense, Jackson testified that he had originally approached the victim to obtain work for his tile-laying business. He gave the victim his card, and the victim looked up at Jackson with a look indicating that he knew who Jackson was. The victim began talking about how much of a "low-life" his wife's ex-husband was. The two men talked for a few minutes more, and Jackson asked if he could "come back and talk a little more." When he returned, Jackson began talking with the victim about rumors that the victim's wife was spreading about Jackson. At that point, the victim got up in Jackson's face, told him to quit talking about his wife, and pushed and punched Jackson. They exchanged swings at each other, until Jackson got the upper hand and they both fell to the ground, with Jackson on top of the victim.

¶7 Jackson's wife and daughter also testified about his discussion with the responding officer. Both testified that Jackson told the officer the victim had pushed him first. When both sides rested, Jackson renewed his motion for acquittal under Rule 20 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court denied the motion.

¶8 At the end of trial, the court found Jackson guilty of criminal damage but not guilty of disturbing the peace. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on aggravated assault, so the court declared a mistrial. The court sentenced Jackson to five days in jail and ordered that he pay $100 in restitution for the sunglasses. The court dismissed the aggravated assault charge without prejudice.

¶9 Jackson timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A) (West 2013).1

DISCUSSION

¶10 Jackson argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted without justification when he struck the alleged victim and broke his sunglasses. We disagree and affirm.

¶11 A question of the "sufficiency of the evidence is one of law, subject to de novo review on appeal." State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15, 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011). A court will enter a judgment of acquittal if no substantial evidence supports the conviction. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20. "Substantial evidence is that which reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 212, ¶ 87, 84 P.3d 456, 477 (2004). "In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and we resolve all inferences against the defendant." Id. We will reverse a court's conviction only if "there is a complete absence of probative facts to support its conclusion." State v. Carlisle, 198 Ariz. 203, 206, ¶ 11, 8 P.3d 391, 394 (App. 2000).

¶12 Jackson first argues that the court did not recognize that justification applies equally to the offenses of assault and criminal damage. But the record does not suggest that the court failed to apply justification equally to both offenses. "Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions." State v. Williams, 220 Ariz. 331, 334, ¶ 9, 206 P.3d 780, 783 (App. 2008). During closing arguments to the court on the criminal damage and disturbing the peace charges, Jackson's attorney argued the justification defense applied to the criminal damage charge. Jackson does not provide any evidence showing that the court disregarded this closing argument, or that the court was ignorant of the law. Instead, Jackson merely states that since he believes he was justified in using force, the damage to the sunglasses was irrelevant. This is insufficient to overcome this presumption.

¶13 Jackson next argues that the State presented no evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the State had proven that his conduct was anything other than justified. In support of his argument, Jackson states that his wife's and his daughter's testimony corroborated his testimony that the victim pushed and punched him. Thus, given their testimony and the jury's rejection of the victim's "self-serving" testimony, Jackson posits that the State presented insufficient evidence that he acted without justification.

¶14 The trial court did not err in considering the victim's testimony and in ruling that Jackson acted without justification. "If evidence of justification . . . is presented by the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification." A.R.S. § 13-205(A). Thus, we apply the same standards as in the sufficient evidence analysis. See State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87, 90, ¶ 14, 235 P.3d 240, 243 (2010). "The finder-of-fact, not the appellate court, weighs the evidence and determines the credibility of witnesses." State v. Cid, 181 Ariz. 496, 500, 892 P.2d 216, 220 (App. 1995).

¶15 First, the court was free to consider the victim's testimony even though the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the aggravated assault claim. The misdemeanor charges and the felony charge were before two different fact finders. The State tried the misdemeanor charges to the court and the felony charge to the jury. The court was free to make its own determinations on the evidence in the misdemeanor charge. Furthermore, the court found on the misdemeanor counts before the jury returned its verdict. Thus, the jury's decision on the aggravated assault charge did not affect the court's decision on the misdemeanor charges.

¶16 Second, the State provided evidence that corroborated the victim's testimony. The victim testified that he never pushed nor punched Jackson. Instead, Jackson was the aggressor. In support, the prosecution provided testimony from the salon owner and the responding police officer as well as evidence of the victim's injuries. The salon owner testified that she saw Jackson on top of the victim. The officer testified to the injuries to the victim and the lack of injuries to Jackson. The evidence showed extensive injuries to the victim's face, but Jackson provided no evidence of his own injuries. Thus, we find evidence exists that a reasonable person could accept as sufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge, ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge, concurring.