THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c), ARCAP 28(c), Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

MEMORANDUM DECISION

WINTHROP, Chief Judge.

¶1 Rhonda Diane Holst ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's findings that she violated the terms of her probation and the court's decision to revoke her probation and sentence her to incarceration in the Arizona Department of Corrections ("ADOC"). 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); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Appellant's counsel therefore requests that we review the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). Although this court granted Appellant the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, she has not done so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). Finding no error warranting reversal of the revocation of Appellant's probation and the resulting sentence, we affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶3 On October 3, 2008, Appellant pled guilty to the crime of attempted sale of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), a class three felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1001 (2010) and 13-3407 (2010).2 The trial court suspended sentencing and placed her on three years' probation. As required by the terms of her probation, Appellant was obligated to obey numerous conditions, and she was advised that if she violated any of these conditions, a revocation petition could be filed and the trial court could impose a prison sentence.

¶4 On December 15, 2009, Appellant's probation officer filed a petition to revoke Appellant's probation, alleging that she violated several conditions of her probation. The conditions alleged to have been violated included: Standard Condition No. 7, that Appellant not possess or use illegal drugs or controlled substances without a valid prescription; Standard Condition No. 9, that Appellant submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed; Standard Condition No. 10, that Appellant participate and cooperate in any program of counseling or assistance as directed; Standard Condition No. 16, that Appellant abide by the judgment and orders of restitution, fines, and fees in her case; Standard Condition No. 19, that Appellant complete 360 hours of approved community work service at a minimum of 15 hours per month; and Standard Condition No. 21, that Appellant be incarcerated in the county jail for 25 days, beginning December 7, 2009.

¶5 At Appellant's probation violation hearing, Appellant's probation officer testified and the court found that the State had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellant had violated each of the conditions alleged by the State. Evidence presented by the State included the results of drug tests, which indicated Appellant had tested positive for illegal substances, and a written admission from Appellant that she had used methamphetamine during her probation. She admitted at the hearing that she did not participate in the required drug testing program. The State also presented evidence that Appellant failed to make the required intake appointment at the Mohave Mental Health Clinic as required by the terms of her probation, and also failed to pay court-ordered fees and fines. Additionally, Appellant was unable to present evidence that she completed the required community service hours. Further, she conceded that she did not turn herself in to the county jail on the specified date to complete the mandatory 25-day jail sentence.

¶6 On October 21, 2010, the court ordered revocation of Appellant's probation, and sentenced her to a mitigated term of two years' imprisonment in ADOC. The court credited Appellant for 102 days of presentence incarceration.

II. ANALYSIS

¶7 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing was substantial and supports the revocation, and the sentence was within the statutory limits. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at the sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with her constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶8 After filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Appellant's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of her future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

III. CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm the trial court's findings that Appellant violated the terms of her probation and the court's decision to revoke Appellant's probation and sentence her to incarceration in ADOC.

MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge, and PATRICK IRVINE, Judge, concurs.