Cited by

Cooper’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.

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

Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel asked this court to search the record for fundamental error.

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

UEROA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.1 J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Ivan Tineo Figueroa filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his resentencing after this court vacated and remanded consecutive sentences that had been imposed in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-116 (2020).2 See

Arriaga’s counsel, therefore, asked this court to search the record for fundamental error in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Emma’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, advising this court that after a diligent search of the record, counsel has found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

Angsuco’s counsel filed a brief per 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.

After searching the record and finding no arguable, non- frivolous question of law, Estrada’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.

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

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

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

¶2 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

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

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

Jones’ 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.

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

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

S W A N N, Chief Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from Vanessa Esmeralda Lopez-Pena’s convictions and probation terms.

C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

¶9 Dressig’s appellate counsel filed a brief per 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.

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

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

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Christopher Paul Mason filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of possession or use of dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony.