Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0054
12-01-2015
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DYLAN JAMES HENDERSON, Appellant.
COUNSEL Joel Larson, Cochise County Legal Defender By Richard M. Swartz, Assistant Legal Defender, Bisbee Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County
No. CR200900542
The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Joel Larson, Cochise County Legal Defender
By Richard M. Swartz, Assistant Legal Defender, Bisbee
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly concurred. HOWARD, Judge:
The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. --------
¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Dylan Henderson was convicted of kidnapping and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, minimum prison term of five years on the aggravated assault charge, but suspended the imposition of sentence on the kidnapping charge, ordering Henderson to be placed on intensive probation for seven years after his release from the prison term.
¶2 The state filed a petition to revoke Henderson's probation in October 2014, based on the fact that his whereabouts were unknown and he had failed to appear at a team meeting and to report a change of residence. After a contested probation revocation hearing, the court found that Henderson was in violation of the terms of his probation and sentenced him to a "partly aggravated" 7.5-year prison term. 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 issues to assert on direct appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for "any reversible error." Henderson has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's finding of a probation violation, was sufficient to support that finding. See State v. Vaughn, 217 Ariz. 518, n. 2, 176 P.3d 716, 717 n. 2 (App. 2008). The evidence showed that as a condition of his probation Henderson was to reside at a certain address and to meet with his probation team as required. Henderson did not appear for his scheduled meeting, left Arizona without permission, and ultimately travelled to Georgia, where he was arrested. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D); 13-1304(A)(3), (B).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Therefore, we affirm the trial court's finding that Henderson violated the terms of his probation and the sentence imposed.