State v. Buehler

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

EDWARD A. BUEHLER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0174
FILED 12-12-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. P1300CR202101370
The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

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

Zickerman Law Office, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. BUEHLER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe
joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Edward Allan Buehler (“Buehler”) appeals his conviction and
sentence for resisting arrest. Counsel for Buehler filed a brief under Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
certifying that, after diligently searching the record, counsel found no
arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Buehler was permitted to
file a supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530,
537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Counsel asks this court to search the record for
arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 79 (1988); Clark, 196 Ariz. at
537 ¶ 30. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm Buehler’s
conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On September 28, 2021, a Prescott Valley police sergeant
notified Detective Cody Skvarek (“Skvarek”) that a male in a blue hoodie
was walking in circles in the intersection of Loos and Tonto streets in
Prescott Valley. Skvarek drove to the intersection in his marked patrol car
and observed the man—who he identified as Buehler—walking in the
middle of the road. Skvarek activated his lights and siren and asked
Buehler to talk. Buehler responded with an expletive and kept walking.
Because Buehler was violating a traffic statute, Skvarek approached and
informed him that he was being detained and was not free to leave. Skvarek
testified that Buehler then “swung at” him and he told Buehler that he was
under arrest. Skvarek also testified that, after being taken to the ground,
Buehler continued to struggle and attempted to pull away. Ultimately, it
took two officers to put Buehler in handcuffs. Buehler, however, testified
that Skvarek never said he was under arrest and that he never swung at the
officer.

¶3 A grand jury indicted Buehler on one count of resisting arrest,
a class 6 felony. See A.R.S. § 13-2508(A)(1). As an aggravating factor, the
State alleged that Buehler had been convicted of a felony in the previous

2
 STATE v. BUEHLER
Decision of the Court

ten years. After a two-day trial, a jury returned a verdict finding Buehler
guilty of the lesser included offense of resisting arrest (passive), a class 1
misdemeanor. See A.R.S. § 13-2508(A)(3). The court sentenced Buehler to
4 months in the county jail, with 24 days presentence incarceration credit.

¶4 Buehler timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and reviewed
the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.

¶6 Buehler was present and represented by counsel at all critical
stages of the proceedings. The record reflects the superior court afforded
Buehler his constitutional and statutory rights and conducted the
proceedings consistent with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
court held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial
was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The sentence imposed falls
within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for
presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm Buehler’s conviction and sentence. Defense
counsel’s obligation to represent Buehler in this appeal will end after
informing Buehler of the outcome of this appeal and his future options,
unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for a petition for
review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582,
584–85 (1984).

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

3