Cited by

Eisenman also timely filed an appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following his bench trial convictions for 19 counts of MIW.

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

Segura’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 on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Johnson’s 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.

Safley’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he found no meritorious grounds for reversal.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Frausto’s 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.

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

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel advised the Court that she has found no arguable question of law, and requested this Court search the record for fundamental error.

S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from Charlie Russell Martin’s convictions and sentences for two counts of aggravated driving under the influence (“DUI”), and the revocation of probation and imposition of sentence for an earlier misconduct involving weapons offense.

STATE v. MYNATT Decision of the Court S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from Douglas Lee Mynatt’s convictions and sentences for forgery and criminal possession of a forgery device.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Ortiz’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.

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)

Reidhead’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he found no meritorious grounds for reversal.

After searching the entire record, Fernando’s counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Cochise County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. DL88-00037

Barnes’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating she has searched the record for error but failed to identify any “arguable question of law that is not frivolous.” Barnes’ counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error.

Washington’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, counsel found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.

S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 Robert Logan Berthold appeals, under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from the revocation of his probation and the resulting sentences.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Jeffrey Mathew Ackerman timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his convictions of aggravated assault, a Class 6 felony; attempted sexual conduct with a minor, a Class 3 felony; sexual abuse, a Class 3 felony; and four counts of sexual conduct with a minor, each a Class 2 felony.

C R U Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with 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, Stunson’s 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.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Samuels’ 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.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Brislan’s 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.

Wolter’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating he has searched the record for error but failed to identify any “arguable question of law.” Wolter’s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error.

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

Rodriguez’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.