Cited by

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.

Galvan’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 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following Edgar Ivan Buzani's conviction of sexual assault, a Class 2 felony, and related revocation of probation.

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); P.2d 878 (1969), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous.

STATE v. JOYCE Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.1 T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

Branin’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.

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-1405(B) (Supp. 2016).1After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Cuevas’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.

Ginorio’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.

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

Appellant’s counsel 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 she searched the record for error but found no arguable question of law.

Tyler’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.

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.

Hernandez’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.

T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).

Rodriguez’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that counsel found no arguable questions of law and asks us 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.

Culver’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.

After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Watt’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error.

Defendant’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.

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.

Hawthorne’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.

J O H N S E N, Judge: ¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following Jose Pablo Lares-Torres's conviction of sexual conduct with a minor, a Class 6 undesignated offense.

T H O M P S O N, Judge: ¶1 This consolidated case—regarding CR2007-109438-001 and CR2015-130267-0011—comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969).