State v. Lindstrom

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ALLAN FREDERICK LINDSTROM, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0131
FILED 09-25-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-146752-001
The Honorable Geoffrey H. Fish, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Ortega & Ortega PLLC, Phoenix
By Alane M. Ortega
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. LINDSTROM
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Veronika Fabian joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Allan Frederick Lindstrom appeals his conviction and
sentence for second-degree murder.

¶2 After searching the entire record, Lindstrom's defense counsel
identified no arguable, non-frivolous question of law. In accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental
error. Lindstrom had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria
persona but did not do so.

¶3 Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶4 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Lindstrom. See
State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998) (citing State v. Nihiser, 191
Ariz. 199, 201 (App. 1997)).

¶5 On October 2, 2017, Lindstrom entered a Mesa hospital
requesting aid for his wife, "Mary"1, who was at a nearby motel. Security
called 911 and police were dispatched to check on her. Officers discovered
Mary's body on the side of the bed in the couple's room. She had been
severely beaten and stabbed, with blood beside her and blood splatter
nearby.

¶6 Officers searched Lindstrom at the hospital and found a knife
in his possession. Blood on the knife matched both Lindstrom and Mary.
Lindstrom had cuts on his arm and head, and Mary had wounds possibly
sustained from defending herself.

1 We use pseudonyms in place of victims' names to protect their
identities. Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(i).

2
 STATE v. LINDSTROM
Decision of the Court

¶7 The State charged Lindstrom with one count of second-
degree murder and alleged Lindstrom killed Mary in a drug-induced rage
for wearing provocative outfits that made him jealous. Following a 19-day
jury trial, the jury found him guilty and that the offense constituted
domestic violence. After trial, the jury separately found aggravating factors
of using a deadly weapon and emotional or financial harm to the victim's
immediate family. The superior court also found that Lindstrom had a
prior felony conviction. The superior court sentenced him to 22 years in
prison with 1,990 days of presentence incarceration credit.

¶8 Lindstrom timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶9 The record reveals that the superior court conducted all
proceedings in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure,
and that Lindstrom was present at all critical stages of the proceedings and
represented by counsel. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 6.1, 19.2. The State presented
sufficient evidence from which the jury could determine Lindstrom's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 (2011).
The jury was comprised of eight members. See A.R.S. § 21-102(B). The
superior court properly instructed the jury on the presumption of
innocence, the burden of proof, and the elements of the charged offenses,
and there is no evidence of reversible juror misconduct. Lindstrom's
sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given
for presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law
and find none. We affirm Lindstrom's conviction and sentence. See Leon,
104 Ariz. at 300–01.

¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Lindstrom of the status of the appeal and of his 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). This Court, of its
accord, grants Lindstrom 30 days from the date of this decision to file an in
propria persona motion for reconsideration. But see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20(c)
(allowing 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration). Lindstrom has 30
days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona petition for

3
 STATE v. LINDSTROM
Decision of the Court

review or 15 days after a timely motion for reconsideration is decided. See
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21(b)(2).

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

4