Cited by

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

T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 This is a consolidated appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Terry’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.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Brian James Vittera timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his convictions on two counts of aggravated driving under the influence, each a Class 4 felony.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law, Patterson’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.

B E E N E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following Marlon Lawrence Hobbs’s (“Hobbs”) convictions for misconduct involving weapons, possession or use of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

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

B E E N E, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) following Randall Rudolph Hatchell’s (“Hatchell”) convictions for possession of dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony.

Cortina'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.

Counsel for Roberts 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, non- frivolous question of law, the Juvenile’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.

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

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); stating that she has searched the record on appeal and has found no question of law that is not frivolous.

H O W E, 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, non-frivolous question of law, Yak’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); P.2d 878 (1969), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and has found no question of law that is not frivolous.

D O W N I E, Judge: ¶1 James Ethan Calderon appeals from a restitution order entered after he was convicted and sentenced for manslaughter.1 Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); stating that she has searched the record on appeal and has found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

H O W E, 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, non-frivolous question of law, Bailey’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); P.2d 878 (1969), stating he has searched the record on appeal and has found no arguable question of law that is 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.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Conrad Lonnie Bowen, Jr. timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his conviction of possession or use of a dangerous drug, a Class 4 felony.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 Darren C. Haywood timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following his convictions of two counts of aggravated assault, each a Class 3 dangerous felony; two counts of aggravated assault, each a Class 2 dangerous felony; attempted first degree murder, a Class 2 dangerous felony; and one count of criminal trespass, a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Tackett’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.