State v. Piper

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CLINT RAY PIPER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0250
FILED 03-04-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. V1300CR202180786
The Honorable John David Napper, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Zickerman Law Office, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee
 STATE v. PIPER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Clint Ray Piper appeals the superior court’s restitution order
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Piper advised that he found no arguable
questions of law after searching the entire record and asks us to conduct an
Anders review. Piper was convicted of aggravated assault, disorderly
conduct, and threatening or intimidating. He was also ordered to pay
restitution. Piper was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief; he
has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm the court’s restitution
order.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Piper was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, four
counts of disorderly conduct, and one count of threatening or intimidating.
In his merits appeal, we vacated two counts of disorderly conduct on
double jeopardy grounds but affirmed Piper’s convictions and sentences
for all remaining counts. State v. Piper, 1 CA-CR 23-0034, 2023 WL 7510940
(App. Nov. 14, 2023), review denied (June 3, 2024).

¶3 The State sought restitution for a victim’s injuries resulting
from Piper’s criminal conduct. Piper objected, asserting that the victim’s
injuries are not a direct result of his criminal conduct and the restitution
requests are untimely.

¶4 The court found the victim’s injuries are a direct result of
Piper’s criminal conduct. The court denied the State’s untimely restitution
requests but ordered Piper to pay restitution in the amount of $2,105.08 for
those injuries that the State had timely requested.

1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.”
State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2 ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).

2
 STATE v. PIPER
Decision of the Court

¶5 Piper timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(A), 13-4031, and -4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶6 As this is an Anders appeal, Piper preserved no issues, and we
review for fundamental error. State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 (1991);
State v. Barraza, 209 Ariz. 441, 447 ¶ 21 (App. 2005); State v. Flores, 227 Ariz.
509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). The record shows sufficient evidence supporting
the court’s restitution order of $2,105.08. The record further reflects all
proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure and Piper was represented by counsel at all critical
stages of the proceedings.

CONCLUSION

¶7 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
searched the record provided for reversible error as to entry of the
restitution order and has found none. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Accordingly, the court’s restitution
order is affirmed.

¶8 Upon filing this decision, counsel shall inform Piper 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). Piper shall have 30 days from the
date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for
reconsideration or petition for review.

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

3