State v. Nevell

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v.

JUSTIN MORGAN NEVELL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0002

FILED 7-26-18

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2014-131120-001 DT

The Honorable Ronda R. Fisk, Judge AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix

By Paul J. Prato

Counsel for Appellant STATE v. NEVELL

Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297. Counsel for Justin Morgan Nevell (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.

¶2 Defendant was on probation. He committed a new offense and the state filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation. After a jury convicted defendant of threatening or intimidating in CR2016-139209-001, the trial court found that he had violated his probation in this matter. The court suspended the imposition of sentencing and reinstated defendant on supervised probation for a term of three years.

¶3 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984), defendant’s counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

STATE v. NEVELL

Decision of the Court

¶4 We affirm the imposition of probation.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court

FILED: JT