State v. Oricho

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MELLYNNE AWUOR ORICHO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0044
FILED 03-30-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2024-113359-001
The Honorable Sam J. Myers, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Adam Susser
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.
 STATE v. ORICHO
Decision of the Court

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Mellynne Awuor Oricho timely appealed under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969)
following her conviction for aggravated assault, a class 3 felony, and
resulting sentence. Oricho’s counsel searched the record and advised this
Court that he found no arguable, non-frivolous question of law. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Oricho
had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

¶2 We must review the entire record for reversible error, State v.
Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 3 (App. 2012), viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable
inferences against Oricho. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App.
1998). After reviewing the record, we affirm Oricho’s conviction and
sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 On March 20, 2024, Oricho stabbed her husband with a
kitchen knife after an argument about infidelity. The argument started after
Oricho heard her husband on the phone with another woman while she
was preparing food in the kitchen. Oricho told her husband she was leaving
him, at which point he tried to hug her. Oricho then stabbed him.

¶4 Oricho gave conflicting stories to the police. Prior to her
arrest, she said she was “annoyed” with her husband and “tried to use the
knife on him.” But later, she claimed she did not know what happened and
suggested that she accidentally stabbed him while she was gesturing with
the knife. While in custody, Oricho again admitted she “tried to cut him
up.”

¶5 The State charged Oricho with one count of aggravated
assault, a class 3 felony. At trial, both arresting officers testified. The State
played the body-worn camera footage of Oricho’s admissions for the jury.
Oricho testified in her own defense that she did not intend to stab her
husband.

¶6 After the State rested, Oricho moved for acquittal under
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The court denied the motion and
sent the case to the jury. The jury found Oricho guilty.

¶7 At sentencing, the State moved to drop the allegation of
dangerousness. The court granted the motion, making Oricho’s offense

2
 STATE v. ORICHO
Decision of the Court

probation-eligible. The court then sentenced Oricho to two years of
supervised probation.

DISCUSSION

¶8 The record reflects that the superior court conducted all
pre-trial and trial proceedings in compliance with the Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure. See State v. Gomez, 27 Ariz. App. 248, 251 (1976) (citing
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 1.2). Oricho was present and represented by counsel, or
waived her presence, at all stages of the proceedings. The record reveals
sufficient evidence from which the jury could determine, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that Oricho was guilty of the charged offense. Oricho
spoke at sentencing. The court stated on the record the factors it considered
in imposing Oricho’s sentence, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.10, and sentenced her
within the statutory guidelines, see A.R.S. §§ 13-701 to -709. We therefore
affirm Oricho’s conviction and sentence.

CONCLUSION

¶9 We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law
and find none. We therefore affirm Oricho’s conviction and resulting
sentence. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300–01.

¶10 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Oricho’s
representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than
inform Oricho of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, 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). On the Court’s own motion, Oricho has 30 days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with a pro per motion
for reconsideration. Oricho also has 30 days from the date of this decision
to proceed, if she wishes, with a pro per petition for review.

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

3