State v. Chambers

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

MONIQUE LUVONIA CHAMBERS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0689
FILED 03-30-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2024-117614-001
The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Brown & Little PLC, Chandler
By Matthew O. Brown
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.
 STATE v. CHAMBERS
Decision of the Court

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Monique Luvonia Chambers timely appealed under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
following her conviction and sentence for unlawful flight from a law
enforcement vehicle, a class 5 non-dangerous felony under Arizona Revised
Statutes Section 28-622.01. Counsel for Chambers searched the record and
advised this Court that he found no arguable, non-frivolous questions of
law and asks us to search the record for reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Chambers 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.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Chambers. See State
v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶4 In the early morning hours of April 14, 2024, a uniformed
Phoenix police officer driving a fully marked police cruiser with red and
blue overhead lights attempted to pull over Chambers, who appeared to be
traveling at a high rate of speed. Rather than pulling over when the officer
activated his overhead lights and siren, Chambers accelerated, made
several quick turns, and entered an apartment complex parking lot. Once
she came to a stop, an individual in Chambers’ front passenger seat fled on
foot, while Chambers remained in the driver’s seat and complied with all
of the officer’s subsequent requests.

¶5 The State charged Chambers with one count of unlawful
flight from a law enforcement vehicle. At trial, the officer who conducted
the traffic stop testified, as did Chambers. The State played the body-worn
camera footage of Chambers’ arrest for the jury, and confronted Chambers
with two prior felony convictions. After the State rested, Chambers moved
for acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The court
denied the motion, and the jury found Chambers guilty. At sentencing, the
court found that Chambers had four prior felony convictions. The court
then balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and sentenced
Chambers as a category three repetitive offender to a three-year mitigated
term with 32 days of presentence incarceration credit.

2
 STATE v. CHAMBERS
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reflects that the superior court conducted all pre-
trial and trial proceedings in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. See State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz. App. 248, 251 (1976) (citing
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 1.2). Chambers was present and represented by counsel at
all critical stages of the proceeding, except when counsel waived her
presence. Sufficient evidence supported the jury finding Chambers was
guilty of the charged offense. The court allowed Chambers to speak and
explained on the record the factors it considered in imposing the sentence,
see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.10, and sentenced her within the statutory
guidelines, see A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -709.

CONCLUSION

¶7 Having reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law
and finding none, we affirm Chambers’ conviction and resulting sentence.
See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300–01.

¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Chambers of the status of the appeal and of her future options. Counsel has
no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue
appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Chambers shall
have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with
a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

3