Opinion text
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
FARES ALFARTOUSI, Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CR 24-0545
FILED 08-27-2026
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-132151-005
The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee
Law Office of Matthew O. Brown, Chandler
By Matthew O. Brown
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision in which Presiding
Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.
W I L L I A M S, Judge:
¶1 Fares Alfartousi (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction and
resulting probation term for aggravated robbery, a class three felony.
Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating counsel
has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law
that is not frivolous. Counsel asks this court to search the record for
reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). This
court allowed Defendant to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but
he did not do so. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining
Defendant’s conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against him.
See State v. Fierro, 254 Ariz. 35, 38, ¶ 2 (2022).
¶3 Defendant and his wife, Souad, have five adult children—
three sons (Yaser, Bashir, and Ali) and two daughters (Zahraa and Z.A.). 1
This court previously decided the appeals of Bashir, Zahraa, and Yaser. See
State v. (Bashir) Alfartousi, 1 CA-CR 24-0570, 2025 WL 2427184 (Ariz. App.
Aug. 21, 2025) (mem. decision); State v. (Zahraa) Alfartousi, 1 CA-CR 24-0624,
2025 WL 2453937 (Ariz. App. Aug. 26, 2025) (mem. decision); State v. (Yaser)
Alfartousi, 1 CA-CR 24-0560, 2026 WL 279307 (Ariz. App. Feb. 3, 2026)
(mem. decision).
¶4 While still living with her parents, Z.A. developed a romantic
relationship with M.L., who was not a member or practitioner of the
family’s religious tradition. Z.A.’s family vehemently disapproved of the
relationship, and Z.A. eventually left home to live with M.L. Fearing that
1 We use initials to protect the victims’ privacy. See State v. Maldonado, 206
Ariz. 339, 341, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2003).
2
STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court
her family members may seek to punish her for the relationship, Z.A.
attempted to cut off all contact with them. But despite Z.A.’s efforts to elude
them, her family members repeatedly found and confronted her.
¶5 Approximately five months after she left her family’s home,
Z.A. attended a medical appointment with M.L. As they walked the
medical office’s parking lot, five of Z.A.’s family members emerged from a
black SUV and attacked them. While Yaser and Defendant restrained M.L.,
Ali, Zahraa, and Souad pushed and dragged Z.A. approximately forty feet
before forcing her into the SUV. During the assault, Ali repeatedly punched
Z.A.’s stomach. Hearing Z.A. and M.L. screaming, witnesses from the
doctor’s office called 9-1-1 and tried to assist Z.A. Although Z.A. managed
to escape the SUV, she sustained numerous bruises and was taken to a
hospital emergency room for treatment after police officers arrived.
¶6 During the attack, Defendant forcibly took Z.A.’s purse from
M.L. The purse held the couple’s cell phones, bank and identification cards,
birth certificates, and a gun. Although Defendant returned the gun and the
purse with some items in it after the police arrived, many other items were
not recovered until police executed a search warrant at three addresses
linked to the Alfartousi family—the family’s residence, Ali’s residence, and
Yaser’s residence. During their search, police obtained evidence, including
cell phone records, rental vehicle receipts and logs, and surveillance
footage, suggesting the Alfartousi family had been tracking Z.A. and M.L.,
despite the couple’s frequent relocations to avoid contact.
¶7 The State obtained a grand jury indictment against Z.A.’s
parents and siblings. The State charged Defendant with kidnapping, a class
two felony and domestic violence offense, and aggravated robbery, a class
three felony, both allegedly committed during the attack in the medical
office parking lot. The State also charged Defendant with two counts of
stalking (against Z.A. and M.L.), each a class five felony and domestic
violence offense, allegedly committed on or between March 1 (when Z.A.
moved out of the family home) and August 18, 2021 (the date of the medical
office attack).
¶8 Tried together, neither Defendant nor any of the co-
defendants testified or presented witnesses. After the superior court denied
Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1),
a jury found him guilty of aggravated robbery, but not guilty as to the other
charged counts, including unlawful imprisonment, a lesser-included
charge of kidnapping. Although the State had alleged aggravating factors,
it chose not to proceed with an aggravation phase. At sentencing, the court
3
STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court
suspended Defendant’s sentence and placed him on three years’ supervised
probation, ordering him to abide by domestic violence and mental health
terms.
¶9 We have jurisdiction over Defendant’s timely appeal under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1) and (4).
DISCUSSION
¶10 After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, we find
none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The evidence
presented at trial was substantial and supports Defendant’s conviction and
probation. So far as the record reveals, Defendant was represented by
counsel at all stages of the proceedings and had a chance to speak at
sentencing. The sentence imposed was within statutory guidelines, and the
proceedings complied with his constitutional and statutory rights and the
Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
¶11 On filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Defendant of the status of his 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
own accord, grants Defendant thirty days from the date of this decision to
proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 31.3(a) (stating the appellate court may for good cause suspend
any provision of Rule 31 and order proceedings as it directs); 31.20(c)
(allowing fifteen days to move for reconsideration). Defendant may petition
the Arizona Supreme Court for review no later than thirty days after the
date of this decision or, if he files a timely motion for reconsideration, no
later than fifteen days after the motion is decided. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
31.21(b)(2)(A).
CONCLUSION
¶12 We affirm Defendant’s conviction and probation term.
MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR
4