State v. Fish

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOEY FISH, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0461
FILED 5-14-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County
No. S0900CR201700878
The Honorable Dale P. Nielson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Michael O’Toole
Counsel for Appellee

KBUNITED, LLC, Phoenix
By Kerrie Droban
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. FISH
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Joey Fish has
advised the court that, after searching the entire record, no arguable
question of law was found and asks this court to conduct an Anders review
of the record. Fish was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief
pro se but has not done so. This court has reviewed the record and has
found no reversible error. Accordingly, his convictions, probation grants
and sex offender registration are affirmed.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This case arises out of a November 2017 high school locker
room incident. The victim, a minor who was a year younger and a fair bit
smaller than Fish, testified that upon entering the locker room, Fish
immediately grabbed him, attempted to kiss him, began wrestling with him
and ultimately put his hand down the victim’s pants, grabbing his scrotum
and penis.

¶3 Fish released the victim after a coach intervened. After the
coach left, Fish grabbed the victim a second time. The victim later testified
that Fish unbuttoned and “unzipped my pants again and grabbed my
crotch on top of the underwear, and then again underneath the
underwear.” Although the victim asked nearby students to intervene, they
did not. Fish then let the victim go and left.

1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the

verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.”
State v. Reinhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89 (1997).

2
 STATE v. FISH
Decision of the Court

¶4 School administrators learned of the incident and law
enforcement investigated. The State charged Fish with two counts of
kidnapping, Class 2 felonies, and two counts of sexual abuse, Class 5
felonies. A five-day jury trial followed in June 2019. At trial, the victim and
other students in the locker room testified about what happened. Fish’s
mother testified about what Fish had told her.

¶5 The jury found Fish not guilty of the charged offenses but
guilty of two counts of unlawful imprisonment, Class 1 misdemeanors, as
lesser included offenses of the kidnapping charges. The court placed Fish
on two years of standard probation and ordered him to register as a sex
offender for ten years after the successful completion of his probation. See
Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-3821(A)(1); see also State v. Coleman, 241 Ariz.
190, 196 ¶ 23 (App. 2016) (upholding registration of a defendant who was
convicted of a specified offense without a finding that it was committed
with a sexual motivation element); State v. Serrano, 234 Ariz. 491, 496 ¶ 16
(App. 2014) (holding registration must be ordered at sentencing).

¶6 Fish timely appeals his convictions and probation grants. This
court has jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1),
13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 The record shows that Fish was represented by counsel at all
stages of the proceedings and counsel was present at all critical stages. The
record provided contains substantial evidence supporting his convictions
and the resulting consequences imposed. From the record, all proceedings
were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and the probation grants and related conditions were
authorized by statute.

CONCLUSION

¶8 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record for reversible error and has found none. Leon, 104 Ariz.
at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30. Accordingly, Fish’s convictions, resulting
probation grants and sex offender registration are affirmed.

3
 STATE v. FISH
Decision of the Court

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to
inform Fish of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense
counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies
an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Fish
shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires,
with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

4