Filed: Jan. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2012
Summary: 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 TIMMER, Judge. 1 Nikolaus Christopher Hinton appeals the superior court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation and its order revoking his probation and committing him to a presumptive one-year term of imprisonment with twenty-eight days' presentence incarceration credit. Hinton'
Summary: 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 TIMMER, Judge. 1 Nikolaus Christopher Hinton appeals the superior court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation and its order revoking his probation and committing him to a presumptive one-year term of imprisonment with twenty-eight days' presentence incarceration credit. Hinton's..
More
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
TIMMER, Judge.
¶1 Nikolaus Christopher Hinton appeals the superior court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation and its order revoking his probation and committing him to a presumptive one-year term of imprisonment with twenty-eight days' presentence incarceration credit. Hinton's counsel 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. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, he found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. This court granted Hinton an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
¶2 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 at 881. We find none. The record shows that Hinton was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Hinton all his rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hinton's disposition falls within the range prescribed by law. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100.
CONCLUSION
¶3 After the filing of this decision, counsel's obligations pertaining to Hinton's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Hinton of the status of the appeal and Hinton's future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Hinton shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
¶4 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's finding and resulting sentence.
Margaret H. Downie, Judge, Lawrence F. Winthrop, Chief Judge, concurring.
