Cited by

After searching the entire record, Petty's defense counsel identified no non-frivolous, arguable question of law, and in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asked this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

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

Smith’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.

T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following Athena Magdalene’s (defendant’s) convictions on two counts of aggravated assault, both class 5 felonies.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Imound Drummond timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of aggravated assault of a peace officer, a Class 5 felony.

T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following Aaron Allan Hipp’s (defendant’s) conviction for one count of possession of a deadly weapon while being a prohibited possessor, a class 4 felony.

Bernal’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.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable issues that are not frivolous.

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

Brandon’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.

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

Jackson’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating he has searched the record for error but could not identify any “arguable question of law that is not frivolous.” Jackson’s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Shane Griffiths timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his convictions of one count of sexual abuse, a Class 3 felony, and 10 counts of sexual conduct with a minor, each a Class 2 felony.

B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to 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)

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

Williams’ 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.

H O W E, 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)

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Sanders’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asking this court to search the record for reversible error.

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.

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.

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

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

IN RE HUMBERTO S. Decision of the Court J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Humberto S. appeals the superior court's order continuing him on intensive probation under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 8-341(B) (2018).1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)