Cited by

Osman’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) advising that after searching the entire appellate record, no arguable question of law was found.

Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

JV- 1 We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s order adjudicating a minor delinquent.

¶2 Greathouse’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, and asking this court to search 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 he has searched the record on appeal and found no question of law that is not frivolous.

Moreno’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.

Lendsey’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.

Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).

Patton’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous and asking the court to review the record for fundamental error.

Pelayo’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error.

Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel asks 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), P.2d 878 (1969).

Montano’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.

STATE v. BENNETT Decision of the Court 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 William Olin Bennett's convictions of assault, a Class 3 misdemeanor, and aggravated assault, a Class 5 felony.

Counsel for Perkins filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal.

Mayes’ counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal.

STATE v. TOLEDO Decision of the Court 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), P.2d 878 (1969), following Luis Angel Toledo's convictions of first-degree burglary, a Class 2 felony; trafficking in stolen property in the first degree, a Class 2 felony; misconduct involving weapons, a Class 4 felony; and possession of burglary tools, a Class 6 felony.

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

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error.

Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error.

Valero’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the entire appellate record, no arguable question of law was found.

This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) P.2d 878 (1969).

shotgun while being a prohibited possessor in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13- 3102(A)(4) (Supp. 2014), a class 4 felony.1 After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Espinoza’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.