Cited by

Reyes’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this court that, after reviewing the record, she was unable to discover any arguable question of law to raise on appeal.

Pacheco’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

Arias’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising us he found no arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for fundamental error.

Inoue, through counsel, filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, no arguable question of law existed.

Duong’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating counsel searched the record on appeal and “[n]o arguable question of law has been found on any issue.” Counsel requests we review the record for fundamental error.

Chakhachiro’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable questions of law.

Scott’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

Souad’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law.

Counsel for Younis filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no arguable questions of law and asking the court to search the record for reversible error.

B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Edgemon’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that after searching the record, she found no arguable question of law.

H O W E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

STATE v. BARNES Decision of the Court M O R S E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Nunez’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

Gallegos’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that after a diligent search of the record, no arguable questions of law exist.

STATE v. PASTRANO Decision of the Court T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

STATE v. MAGYAR Decision of the Court P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Jeremy Lucas Laszlo Magyar timely appealed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following his convictions and resulting sentences for two counts of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (impaired to the slightest degree) and (blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) over 0.08) with a suspended license, both class 4 felonies.

Counsel for Rodriguez filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising us that counsel found no errors or arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for fundamental, reversible error.

STATE v. HOUSTON Decision of the Court J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

B E C K E, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Martinez’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable questions of law.

F U R U Y A, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) for Scott Backus’s conviction and sentence of Failure to Notify Change of Vehicle Information (No. S1300CR202380410) and the revocation and reinstatement of his probation for Possession of Narcotic Drugs (No. V1300CR202280018).

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Togaba’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable questions of law.

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) following her conviction for aggravated assault, a class 3 felony, and resulting sentence.

STATE v. CHAMBERS Decision of the Court P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Monique Luvonia Chambers timely appealed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following her conviction and sentence for unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 non-dangerous felony under Arizona Revised Statutes Section 28-622.01.

Caudle’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying he found no arguable, non- frivolous question of law.

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

After searching the record and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Thomas’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Counsel for Flores filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) certifying that, after diligently searching the record, counsel found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

STATE v. SCHWAN Decision of the Court J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

After searching the record and finding no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Lowe’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.

STATE v. GASTELUM Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.1 B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Counsel for Robert E. Stevenson filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)