record for reversible error in Arizona

2026We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , and find none.

2026We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , and find none.

2026See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (instructing the court to review the record for reversible error). ¶21 The record contains sufficient evidence from which the superior court could determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Burress violated the terms of his probation by having unauthorized contact with his minor daughter.

2026See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-69, ¶¶ 19-26 (2005); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating this court reviews the entire record for reversible error).

2025Nettrour filed a supplemental brief, which we have considered. ¶2 We must review the entire record for reversible error, Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30 , viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against Nettrour, see State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989).

2025Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against Johnson, State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989).

2017See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339 (App. 1993).

2017See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339 (App. 1993).

2026Chambers had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. ¶2 After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 3 (App. 2012), we find none, and affirm Chambers’ conviction and sentence.

2026Pacheco had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. ¶2 We must review the entire record for reversible error, State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 3 (App. 2012), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against Pacheco.

2026See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 ; see also State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

2025See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 ; see also State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

2025See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ; State v. Melendez, 256 Ariz. 14, 19, ¶ 1 (App. 2023). ¶2 We must “review the entire record for reversible error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against [Perez].” Melendez, 256 Ariz. at 19, ¶ 1 (cleaned up).

2025See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ; State v. Melendez, 256 Ariz. 14, 19, ¶ 1 (App. 2023). ¶2 We must “review the entire record for reversible error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against [Perez].” Melendez, 256 Ariz. at 19, ¶ 1 (cleaned up).

2025See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ; State v. Melendez, 256 Ariz. 14, 19, ¶ 1 (App. 2023). ¶2 We must “review the entire record for reversible error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against [Perez].” Melendez, 256 Ariz. at 19, ¶ 1 (cleaned up).

2024See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ; State v. Melendez, 256 Ariz. 14, 19, ¶ 1 (App. 2023). ¶2 We must “review the entire record for reversible error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against [Calderon].” Melendez, 256 Ariz. at 19, ¶ 1 (cleaned up).

2025DISCUSSION ¶6 This court reviews the entire record for reversible error, State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43 , 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012), viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against Astle, see State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229 , 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). ¶7 Counsel for Astle has advised this court that after a diligent search of the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law.

2025Gonzalez had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. ¶2 We must review the entire record for reversible error, Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30 , viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable inferences against Gonzalez, see State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

2026See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-69, ¶¶ 19-26 (2005); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating this court reviews the entire record for reversible error).

2025See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 , 567–69, ¶¶ 19–26 (2005); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error).

2026See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). ¶2 Our initial review of the record revealed non-frivolous issues, and under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we ordered supplemental briefing on (1) whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct additional questioning of a prospective juror (“Juror 33”) during voir dire or to sua sponte strike Juror 33 for cause; and (2) whether the prosecutor’s comments on Gastelum’s decision not to testify at trial require reversal.

2024Schafer was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. ¶2 After reviewing the record, we requested supplemental briefing under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) on two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in empaneling a jury of less than twelve persons when Schafer could have been imprisoned for thirty years, and (2) whether the court erred in failing to expressly sentence Defendant on each count for which he was convicted. ¶3 Having reviewed the entire record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), we affi

2021State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1 , 3 ¶ 9 (2002). ¶16 We have further reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , and find none.

2015Id. ¶10 Having considered defense counsel’s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , 451 P.2d at 881 , we find none.

2019See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 284 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 (App. 1999).

2014See Anders, 386 U.S. 738 ; Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 , 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999).

2023Having searched the 3 STATE v. MOLINA TORRES Decision of the Court record for reversible error and finding none, we affirm Molina Torres’s convictions and sentences. ¶9 Unless, upon further review, defense counsel discovers an issue appropriate to raise with the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel’s obligations in this appeal will end once counsel “inform[s] [Molina Torres] of the status” of this appeal and his “future options.” See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).

1999See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 , 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984).

2022Thomas v. Rayes, 214 Ariz. 411, 415, ¶ 20 (2007). ¶13 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and Massey’s arguments, and we have fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , and find none.

2015Thomas v. Rayes, 214 Ariz. 411 , 415 ¶ 20, 153 P.3d 1040, 1044 (2007). ¶13 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error.

2022State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 286 (1990). ¶24 We have also reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , and find none.

2019However, the State has not filed a cross-appeal, and relying on State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 286 (1990), we do not correct this error. ¶11 We have reviewed the remaining record for reversible error and find none.

2020Judge McMurdie has read the briefs and reviewed the record. 2 STATE v. HUGHES Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error, Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the “evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s findings,” State v. Tatlow, 231 Ariz. 34, 39-40, ¶ 15 (App. 2012). ¶5 A person is guilty of aggravated assault if they commit an assault and the person knew or had reason to know that the person assaulted was a peace officer.

2020DISCUSSION ¶4 Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error, Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), viewing the “evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s findings,” State v. Tatlow, 231 Ariz. 34, 39-40, ¶15 (App. 2012).

2021Because no conflict was apparent, the court was not required to impose safeguards under Rule 10(D). ¶10 After reading and considering counsel’s brief and reviewing the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , and JV-117258, 163 Ariz. at 486 , we found an arguable issue: whether the juvenile court committed reversible error by failing to make specific factual findings concerning the requirements of A.R.S. § 8-341.01(B) when it ordered that Ulises be placed at Canyon State Academy.

2015Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 486-87 , 788 P.2d 1235, 1237-38 (App. 1989), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.

2026State v. Hampton, 208 Ariz. 241 , 243–44 ¶ 7 (2004) (“A defendant can affirmatively waive the right to counsel at trial, as 11 STATE v. BACKUS Decision of the Court long as the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent.”); State v. Bohm, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1997) (right to be present at all critical stages). ¶39 We modify Backus’s sentence to account for the full 222 days of presentence incarceration but otherwise affirm his conviction and resulting sentences of 12 years in prison and 39 months of probation. ¶40 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel is directed to inform Backus of the s

2026State v. Hampton, 208 Ariz. 241 , 243–44 ¶ 7 (2004) (“A defendant can affirmatively waive the right to counsel at trial, as 11 STATE v. BACKUS Decision of the Court long as the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent.”); State v. Bohm, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1997) (right to be present at all critical stages). ¶39 We modify Backus’s sentence to account for the full 222 days of presentence incarceration but otherwise affirm his conviction and resulting sentences of 12 years in prison and 39 months of probation. ¶40 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel is directed to inform Backus of the s

2025See State v. Malone, 247 Ariz. 29, 31, ¶ 8 (2019); State v. Reaves, 252 Ariz. 553 , 562, ¶ 20 n.2 (App. 2022). ¶18 Giamboi finally argues that two detectives lied in court, “not only about [the Camera 32 video], but multiple impeachment issues.” He does not establish that the detectives lied, nor does our review of the record reveal any evidence of perjury or prosecutorial misconduct. ¶19 In addition to evaluating the arguments raised in Giamboi’s supplemental brief, we have reviewed the entire record for reversible error.

2023See State v. Vassell, 238 Ariz. 281 , 285 ¶ 18 (App. 2015) (failure to argue a claim ordinarily waives that claim). ¶15 We have further reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , and find none.

2022See State v. Herrera, 121 Ariz. 12, 14 (1978). ¶7 We have fully reviewed the record for reversible error and find none.

2020State v. Raffaele, __ Ariz. __, __, ¶ 9, 471 P.3d 685, 689 (App. 3 STATE v. MUEHLHAUSEN Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶10 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error.

2020“We will not reverse a trial court’s determination that a defendant violated a term of probation unless the court’s finding is ‘arbitrary and unsupported by any theory of the evidence.’” Id. at 39 , ¶ 15 (quoting State v. Stotts, 144 Ariz. 72, 79 (1985)).

2020See Youngblood, 173 Ariz. at 506-07 . ¶17 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 , and find none.

2020See Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 60-61 (1972) (describing Dugan v. Ohio, 277 U.S. 61 (1928)). ¶25 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and Fender’s supplemental brief, and we have fully reviewed the record for reversible error.