State v. Alfartousi

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

YASER ALFARTOUSI, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0560
FILED 02-03-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-132151-001
The Honorable Joseph C. Kreamer, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Michael T. O’Toole
Counsel for Appellee

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Adam Susser
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B E C K E, Judge:

¶1 Appellant Yaser Alfartousi appeals his conviction and
probation grant for stalking. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 “Adara”1 is the youngest child in a family of seven: three
brothers, including Appellant Yaser2, one sister, and a mother and father
(“the Alfartousis”). In 2019, when Adara was 18 years old, she began dating
“Mark.” Adara did not tell her parents she was dating Mark, as she feared
she could be killed for being in a relationship with a non-Muslim man.

¶3 In March 2021, Adara left her parents’ home and moved in
with Mark and his mother. Adara did not tell her family where she was
going, and they immediately started to look for her. The same day she
moved out, Adara was walking to a store when the Alfartousis drove by in
Yaser’s gold van and told Adara to come back home. People in a nearby
store saw what was happening and called the police, who arrived and
separated the family from Adara. Adara saw Yaser on multiple other
occasions after she had moved out.

¶4 A few days after Adara moved out, Adara and Mark left
Mark’s mother’s home and began staying at a hotel. Adara saw Yaser in his
gold van in the parking lot of the hotel. Adara’s mother and sister then
banged on her hotel room door. Adara was scared, so she hid in the
bathroom and called the police.

¶5 The next day, Adara was detained by police and taken to a
mental health facility because her family had petitioned to have her mental
health evaluated. Adara did not know why her family would have filed a

1 We use pseudonyms for victims Adara and Mark to protect their privacy.

See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(i).
2 Because the co-defendants share the same family name, we refer to the

Appellant by his first name.

2
 STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court

petition for her mental health. As Adara was being discharged from the
facility the next day, she saw the Alfartousis waiting for her. She told nurses
that “they’re trying to get me,” so security escorted her to another exit.

¶6 A few weeks later, Adara and Mark were in their car when
she saw the Alfartousis in Yaser’s gold van. As Adara and Mark were
driving, they saw that the van “was going to crash” into their car. Adara’s
brother Bashir then got out of the van with a weapon in his hand,
prompting Adara and Mark to drive away to a nearby gas station to call the
police.

¶7 Adara and Mark then moved to a different hotel, but within a
day, she saw her family again. They then decided to move to Yuma. By the
time they established themselves in Yuma, Adara had obtained orders of
protection against everyone in her family.

¶8 Adara and Mark then moved back to the Phoenix area.
Around June 2021, Adara became pregnant. She feared her family would
harm her for being unmarried and pregnant with a non-Muslim man’s
child.

¶9 In August 2021, some of the Alfartousis, including Yaser,
showed up to a doctor’s office where Adara and Mark were getting a
prenatal checkup. When Adara and Mark were about to enter the doctor’s
office, the family grabbed Adara and told her to come back home. Yaser
held Mark as the others present threw Adara into their car. Adara was able
to climb out of the car, but she was then punched in the stomach by her
brother Ali, resulting in her hospitalization. Adara’s purse, which
contained a gun she and Mark had purchased for safety, was taken by her
family. Nurses from the doctor’s office called the police after witnessing this
incident. Adara stated that this incident made her afraid “[t]hat they were
going to take [her] and kill [her].”

¶10 All six of Adara’s family members were charged for their
roles in these acts and they were tried together. At first, Yaser was indicted
on two charges: kidnapping and aggravated robbery. The State eventually
filed a new indictment under a different case number. Collectively, there
were four charges against Yaser: kidnapping, aggravated robbery, stalking
of Adara, and stalking of Mark. Each was a felony charge.

3
 STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court

¶11 The State filed an indictment alleging the stalking charges
under case number CR2023-006953.3 The State then dismissed CR2023-
006953 without prejudice and the parties stipulated that an amended
indictment would be filed in this case. However, for reasons not clear from
the record, the amended indictment was never filed.

¶12 The stalking counts tried to the jury in this case were listed
only in the indictment filed in dismissed case CR2023-006953. Without
objection, that indictment, including the stalking charges, was read to the
jury at the beginning of the trial. Defense counsel acknowledged during
closing argument that Yaser was charged with stalking. Yaser made no
objection at any point during the trial to the stalking charges or the failure
to file the amended indictment, nor did he object when the verdict was read.

¶13 Yaser was convicted of unlawful imprisonment (a lesser
included offense of kidnapping), aggravated robbery, and stalking of
Adara. His sentences were suspended and he was placed on supervised
probation for each conviction, with the longest term being 10 years for
stalking. He appeals his conviction and probation grant for stalking. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona
Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A).

DISCUSSION

I. The Failure to File the Amended Indictment Was Not Structural
Error and Did Not Result in Fundamental Error.

¶14 Yaser first argues that the State’s failure to file the amended
indictment in this case adding the stalking charges was structural or
fundamental error.

¶15 Structural error “affects ‘the framework within which the trial
proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’” State v.
Torres, 208 Ariz. 340, 343–44, ¶ 11 (2004). It “is so significant that the affected
disposition is necessarily unreliable.” State v. Perez-Gutierrez, 257 Ariz. 334,
339, ¶ 17 (2024). We find structural error in “relatively few instances” of
errors that “deprive defendants of basic protections and infect the entire
trial process.” State v. Bush, 244 Ariz. 575, 591, ¶ 66 (2018) (internal
quotations omitted). Here, Yaser’s stipulation to the filing of the amended

3 We will take judicial notice of the indictment in CR2023-006953 filed in

superior court on April 27, 2023. See Ariz. R. Evid. 201; In re Sabino R., 198
Ariz. 424, 425, ¶ 4 (App. 2000).

4
 STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court

indictment with the stalking charges and his participation in the trial with
notice of those charges forecloses any finding of structural error.

¶16 In support of his contention that structural error should
apply, Yaser cites only State v. Buckley, 153 Ariz. 91 (App. 1987). However,
Buckley discusses subject matter jurisdiction, not structural error. In Buckley,
no information or indictment was ever filed against the defendant. Id. at 92.
The defendant argued on appeal that the lack of information voided his
conviction and sentence, asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under Article 2, Section 30 of the Arizona Constitution, id.,
which states in part “[n]o person shall be prosecuted criminally in any court
of record for felony or misdemeanor, otherwise than by information or
indictment.” Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 30. Buckley held that, although the
information was never filed, the complaint (which was filed) and plea
agreement (which the court accepted after a colloquy with, and factual basis
provided by, the defendant) gave the defendant sufficient notice of his
charges and conferred subject matter jurisdiction on the court. 153 Ariz. at
94. Yaser argues that he lacked what he refers to as the “remedial processes”
of a complaint or plea agreement stating his charges.

¶17 Our supreme court has since held in State v. Maldonado that
filing an indictment or information is not necessary to confer subject matter
jurisdiction to the superior court in criminal cases. See 223 Ariz. 309, 312, ¶
20 (2010). In Maldonado, the defendant was charged by information with
possession of cocaine, but the information was not filed with the superior
court until after he was convicted. Id. at 310, ¶¶ 2–3. The Arizona Supreme
Court held “that the State’s failure to file an information before trial did not
deprive the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction or constitute
fundamental error.” Id. at ¶ 1. Maldonado also clarified Buckley, stating that
its conclusion that documents of record, like a complaint or plea agreement,
were the equivalent of an information was “simply a different way of
saying that the actual filing of an information is not jurisdictional.” Id. at
313, ¶ 23. Likewise, the superior court here had subject matter jurisdiction
without a filed indictment.

¶18 Because Yaser shows no structural error and did not object to
the indictment at trial, we review for fundamental error. See Maldonado, 223
Ariz. at 313, ¶ 25 (“If a defendant does not object before trial, as occurred
here, the state’s failure to timely file an information will be reviewed on
appeal only for fundamental error.”); see also State v. Trudell, 258 Ariz. 290,
293, ¶ 17 (App. 2024) (“For error that does not rise to the level of structural
error, if the defendant fails to object at trial, we review only for
fundamental, prejudicial error.”).

5
 STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court

¶19 To prevail on fundamental error review, Yaser must show
that “(1) the error went to the foundation of the case, (2) the error took from
the defendant a right essential to his defense, or (3) the error was so
egregious that he could not possibly have received a fair trial.” State v.
Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 142, ¶ 21 (2018) (emphasis in original). If Yaser
shows prong one or two, then he must also show prejudice. See id. If he
shows prong three, then prejudice is already established. See id. Finally,
where applicable, establishing prejudice is a “fact-intensive inquiry.” Id.

¶20 Yaser has failed to show prejudice and therefore cannot
prevail under the first two prongs. In Maldonado, the supreme court
reviewed “the state’s failure to timely file an information” for fundamental
error. 223 Ariz. at 313, ¶ 25. The court held that there was no prejudice
because the same information charge was the basis of a preliminary hearing
and arraignment, and the information was read to the jury at trial. Id. at ¶
26. The defendant in Maldonado also “acknowledge[d] that he had notice of
the charge for which he was tried” and did not allege any prejudice. Id.

¶21 Here, as in Maldonado, the defendant was aware that he was
being prosecuted on stalking charges. The parties stipulated to filing the
amended indictment containing those charges. Defense counsel stated
during closing argument that “both my clients, both Bashir and Yaser are
accused of stalking.” Additionally, the indictment with the stalking charges
was read to the jury without objection by Yaser. Because Yaser fails to show
prejudice, he fails to show fundamental error under prongs one or two.

¶22 Prong three is also not met. This prong requires a showing of
error that “so profoundly distort[s] the trial that injustice is obvious.”
Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 141, ¶ 20. Nothing that occurred here meets or
approaches that standard. Yaser stipulated to filing the amended
indictment and knew that the trial included stalking charges.

¶23 Yaser fails to establish either structural or fundamental error
in the State’s failure to file the amended indictment.

6
 STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court

II. There Was Sufficient Evidence to Support Yaser’s Conviction for
Stalking.

¶24 Yaser lastly argues that there was insufficient evidence to
sustain his stalking conviction. We review the sufficiency of the evidence de
novo. State v. Rodriguez, 251 Ariz. 90, 96, ¶ 16 (App. 2021). Evidence is
sufficient when “substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict.” State v.
Cox, 217 Ariz. 353, 357, ¶ 22 (2007). “Substantial evidence is more than a
mere scintilla and is such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990) (quoting State
v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419 (1980)). “We resolve any conflicts in the evidence
against the defendant and view all facts in the light most favorable to
supporting the verdict.” State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 5 (2014).

¶25 A person commits stalking by “intentionally or knowingly
engag[ing] in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person
and if that conduct causes the victim to . . . [s]uffer emotional distress or
reasonably fear that” the victim will be physically injured. A.R.S. § 13-
2923(A)(1)(b)(i). “Course of conduct” means a person “directly or
indirectly, in person or through one or more third persons or by any other
means . . . [m]aintain[ed] visual or physical proximity to a specific person
or direct[ed] verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to
a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however
short.” A.R.S. § 13-2923(D)(1)(a)(i).

¶26 Yaser contends that Adara saw his van but did not see Yaser.
However, Adara testified that she saw Yaser at “two or more” of the
incidents. These included when she was staying in a hotel and Yaser was in
his van parked in the parking lot. Adara said she was scared and hid in the
bathroom. Adara then saw “all of” her family when being discharged from
the mental health facility, and she told the nurses that “they’re trying to get
me.” Adara testified to seeing Yaser in the gold van when it almost crashed
into Adara and Mark’s car. Adara stated they then drove to a gas station
because they were scared and wanted to get help. Finally, Adara testified
that she saw Yaser when he held Mark back while Adara was thrown into
a car and punched in the stomach before being hospitalized. Adara stated
that she was afraid “[t]hat they were going to take [her] and kill [her].”

7
 STATE v. ALFARTOUSI
Decision of the Court

¶27 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict,
Adara’s testimony as to these incidents is substantial evidence that Yaser
committed stalking. Adara’s testimony was sufficient to support the jury’s
verdict.

CONCLUSION

¶28 We affirm.

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

8