NOT FOR PUBLICATION

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES, See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

VÁSQUEZ, Judge.

¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Edward Ramirez was convicted of disorderly conduct, aggravated assault, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, all domestic violence offenses committed in the presence of minors. The trial court sentenced him to a six-year term of imprisonment on the deadly weapon assault charge and suspended the imposition of sentence on the remaining counts, placing Ramirez on concurrent terms of probation, the longer of which was four years, to commence upon his release from prison.

¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal, but suggesting a "possible issue" exists "regarding foundation for impeachment testimony." Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Ramirez has not filed a supplemental brief.

¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed Ramirez cut his girlfriend on the arm with a knife and put his hand on her throat, choking her, while their two children were nearby. After she left the couple's home and went to a neighbor's house, Ramirez drove his vehicle "fast" onto the neighbor's land with the couple's daughter in the vehicle. We further conclude the sentence imposed and probationary terms ordered are within the statutory limit. A.R.S. §§ 13-704(A), 13-902, 13-1204(A)(2), (B), 13-2904(A)(1), 13-3601.

¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed counsel's "possible issue" relating to the foundation for certain impeachment testimony and have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Ramirez's convictions, sentences, and terms of probation are affirmed.