than “vague allegations.” As discussed above, we agree. Mental Health ¶ 43 The trial court found that Poyson suffers from “certain personality disorders” but did not assign any weight to this factor. Dr. Celia Drake diagnosed the defendant with antisocial personality disorder, which she attributed to the “chaotic environment in which he was raised.” She found that there was, among other things, no “appropriate model for moral reasoning within the family setting” to which the defendant could look for guidance. However, we find no indication in the record that “the disorder controlled [his] conduct or impaired his men tal capacity to such a degree that leniency is required.” State v. Brewer, 170 Ariz. 486, 505, 826 P.2d 783, 802 (1992); see also Medina, 193 Ariz. at 517, 975 P.2d at 107 (<HOLDING>). We therefore accord this factor no mitigating
holding that the defendants personality disorder had little or no mitigating value where the defendants desire to emulate his friends not his mental disorder was the cause of his criminal behavior recognizing that fathers parental rights were terminated based upon his incarceration and his behavior while in prison his history of substance abuse and the fact that his child support payments are in arrears holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that an employee who breaches the duty of loyalty to his employer forfeits his right to compensation and creates a good faith dispute over the payment of his wages by virtue of his bad behavior holding that the defendants previous threatening behavior toward the victim was highly probative of his motive