Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0021
07-12-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BRANDON ALBERT SEAY, Appellant.
COUNSEL Cochise County Office of the Legal Advocate, Bisbee By Xochitl Orozco, Legal Advocate 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County
No. S0200CR201200245
The Honorable John F. Kelliher Jr., Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Cochise County Office of the Legal Advocate, Bisbee
By Xochitl Orozco, Legal Advocate
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred.
ECKERSTROM, Judge:
¶1 Brandon Seay pled guilty in 2012 to computer tampering. He was sentenced to a five-year term of probation, to begin after the sentences imposed in another cause number.
¶2 Pursuant to a 2018 petition to revoke, the trial court revoked Seay's probation and sentenced him to a 3.5-year prison term. Counsel has filed a brief complying with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no "arguable question of law that is not frivolous," and asking this court to search the record for error. Seay has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 After a contested hearing, the trial court found Seay had violated condition one of his probation—that he comply with the law—by committing the crime of threatening and intimidating in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1202(A)(1). Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the court's finding, State v. Tatlow, 231 Ariz. 34, ¶ 15 (App. 2012), the evidence is sufficient to support that finding here. In July 2018, Seay threatened to kill the juvenile victim. The sentence imposed is within the statutory range. A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-2316(E).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the trial court's order revoking Seay's probation and the sentence imposed.