Cited by

¶¶ 12-13 (2010) (appellant must affirmatively establish error in the record).

¶ 12 (2010) (explaining that when a defendant fails to establish error, "we need not determine the applicable standard of review.").

(“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, .

¶ 11 (2010) (“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized .

¶ 13 (2010) (“We will not reverse a conviction based on speculation or unsupported inference.”).

¶ 11 (2010) (“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, .

¶ 11 (2010) (“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, .

“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, however, a defendant on appeal must first establish that some error occurred.” ¶ 11 (2010); ¶ 21 (2018) (“[T]he first step in fundamental error review is determining whether trial error exists.”); –85, ¶ 10 (2009) (discussing structural error review) (abrogated on other grounds by Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 140–4

“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, however, a defendant on appeal must first establish that some error occurred.” ¶ 11 (2010).

After the defendant establishes error occurred, ¶ 11 (2010), the State bears the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict or sentence,” Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 18.

“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, however, a defendant on appeal must first establish that some error occurred.” ¶ 11 (2010).

When reviewing for fundamental error, “[w]e will not reverse a conviction based on speculation or unsupported inference.” ¶ 13 (2010) (citations omitted); ¶ 18 (1998) (declining to “indulge in [] guesswork” based on the defendant’s speculation that the remarks of two prospective jurors during voir dire tainted the entire panel); ¶ 14 (App. 2006) (hol

-77 (2010) (stating appellant must first establish error under any standard of appellate review).

¶ 13 (2010) ("We will not reverse a conviction based on speculation or unsupported inference."); -14 (1997) (reviewing court will not presume prejudice where none appears 4 A detective testified that ten grams of methamphetamine is an amount "consistent with sales" rather tha

¶ 13 (2010) (“We will not reverse a conviction based on speculation or unsupported inference.”).

Even when reviewing for fundamental error, we may only consider error that “affirmatively appear[s] in the record.” (appellate court will not reverse conviction “based on speculation or unsupported inference”).

(noting defendant must first establish error under any standard of review).4 New Trial ¶8 Dominguez next claims the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial.

–62, ¶¶11-19, -78 (2010) (holding that defendant failed to meet his burden to establish that only eleven jurors deliberated, “[w]hen the uncorrected record is considered as a whole”); (holding that because the remaining record was

¶ 18, (explaining that when the State learned of a possible transcription error, it “could and should have asked the appellate court to employ [Rule 31.8(h)] to clarify what actually occurred” and thereby “better served the goals of timely administering justice and searching for the trut

(noting defendant “must first establish that some error occurred” under any review standard).

Taking into consideration “the goals of timely administering justice and searching for the truth,” , we believe a remand for limited pi’oeeedings most efficiently resolves the issues at hand and preserves Peterson’s right to seek relief from the court’s ruling on remand.

(“Regardless of how an alleged error ultimately is characterized, .