Cited by

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

Marquez-Barraza’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.

Casas’ 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.

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

P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Carlos Pacheco timely appealed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following his conviction for unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle, a class 5 felony.

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

Following the second trial, his counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) advising this Court that she found no arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for fundamental error.

Vazquez’s counsel filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

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

Hayes’ counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising there are no meritorious grounds for reversal.

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

Her counsel filed a brief stating counsel had reviewed the entire record but found “no arguable issues for appeal” and requested this court to review the record for error under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa Cnty.

Morn’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.” Counsel requests we review the record for fundamental error.

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

¶6 On appeal, Peterson’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) advising this Court that she found no arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for fundamental error.

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

Counsel for Lopez filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after diligently searching the record, counsel found no non-frivolous question of law.

Nishite-Calara’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law.

Counsel for Evans filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that she found no arguable 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.

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

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

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