NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

DANIEL S. COVEN Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0150

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-133433-001

The Honorable J. Justin McGuire, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Spencer D. Heffel

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. COVEN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Samuel A. Thumma

joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Daniel S. Coven (“Defendant”) appeals the trial court’s 

revocation of his probation.1 

¶2 Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 

(1969), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, 

no arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant also filed a supplemental 

brief in propria persona.

¶3 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record 

for reversible error.” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 

(App. 1999). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the 

Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (West 2014).2 

¶4 Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶5 Defendant was found guilty by a jury of count one, resisting 

arrest, and count two, disorderly conduct. At sentencing, the trial court 

ordered Defendant to serve a one-year probation term for each offense; the 

probation terms were ordered to be served concurrently. 

 

1 Defendant separately appealed his original convictions and 

sentences, which are currently pending on direct appeal in Case Number 1 

CA-CR-13-0524. 

2 Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the 

applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have 

occurred.
STATE v. COVEN

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Following sentencing, Defendant reviewed and signed an 

acknowledgment of the terms and conditions of his probation. However, 

within a few months of sentencing the Adult Probation Department 

(“APD”) filed a petition to revoke Defendant’s probation. The petition 

alleged, in relevant part, that Defendant violated Condition Eleven of his 

probation, which provides: 

I [Defendant] will actively participate and cooperate in any 

program of counseling or assistance as determined by 

APD...I will sign any release or consent required by the APD 

so the APD can exchange information in relation to my 

treatment, behavior, and activities. 

¶7 At the violation hearing, Defendant’s probation officer 

testified that Defendant violated Condition Eleven by refusing to sign (1) a 

release of information form and (2) a directive regarding screening for 

anger management counseling. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial 

court found Defendant guilty of violating Condition Eleven of his 

probation. At disposition, the trial court reinstated Defendant on 

probation, ordering him to serve eleven days incarceration as to count one,

with no pre-sentence credit, and four days incarceration with credit for four 

days served as to count two. Defendant filed a timely appeal. 

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review the record for fundamental error. Clark, 196 Ariz. 

at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. We will not reverse a trial court’s determination 

that a defendant violated a term of probation unless the trial court’s finding 

is “arbitrary and unsupported by any theory of the evidence.” State v. 

Tatlow, 231 Ariz. 34, 39-40, ¶ 15, 290 P.3d 228, 233-34 (App. 2012) (quoting 

State v. Stotts, 144 Ariz. 72, 79, 695 P.2d 1110, 1117 (1985)). The State must 

prove a violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. R.

Crim. P. 27.8(b)(3); see also State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 305, 306, 609 P.2d 575, 

576 (1980).

¶9 A sentencing court may impose on a probationer such 

conditions as will promote rehabilitation. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.1. In 

addition, a probation officer may impose regulations on a defendant that

are necessary to implement the conditions of probation imposed by the 

court. Id. 

¶10 We conclude the trial court’s determination that Defendant 

violated his probation is supported by the evidence. Defendant refused to 

sign a release of information form and a directive to participate in anger 
STATE v. COVEN

Decision of the Court

4

management screening as was required by Condition Eleven of his 

probation. 

¶11 Finally, Defendant claims he was wrongfully incarcerated on 

the original conviction because he was not provided with counsel and he 

did not waive his right to counsel. However, that issue has been raised in 

Defendant’s currently pending appeal in Case Number 1 CA-CR-13-0524, 

and is not before us in this appeal; we only review issues related to the 

revocation of Defendant’s probation. 

CONCLUSION 

¶12 We have read and considered counsel’s brief, carefully 

searched the entire record for reversible error and found none. Clark, 196 

Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49, 2 P.3d at 100. All of the proceedings were conducted in 

compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial 

evidence supported the finding that Defendant violated his probation. 

Defendant was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of 

the revocation of probation proceedings. At disposition, Defendant and his

counsel were given an opportunity to speak and the court imposed a legal 

sentence.

¶13 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Defendant’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more 

than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and his 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). Defendant shall have thirty days 

from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria 

persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶14 Accordingly, the trial court determination that Defendant 

violated his probation is affirmed.