NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

KHALILAH ALI, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0502

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-107640-001

The Honorable Michael D. Gordon, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix

By Terry J. Adams

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ALI

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge James P. Beene joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Khalilah Ali timely filed this appeal in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 

(1969), following her conviction of aggravated assault, a Class 5 felony; 

resisting arrest, a Class 6 felony; and driving on a suspended license, a Class 

1 misdemeanor. Ali's counsel has searched the record on appeal and found 

no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 

U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 

1999). Ali was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did 

not do so. Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental 

error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Ali's convictions and 

sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 As Ali drove home from Old Town Scottsdale in the early 

morning hours, a police officer stopped her for a broken headlight.

1 The 

officer discovered Ali's driver's license was suspended and called for 

backup. Once another officer arrived, the two officers sought to arrest Ali. 

On one officer's command, Ali stepped out of her vehicle and placed her 

hands behind her back. After an officer placed a handcuff around Ali's right 

wrist, Ali began to shift her body, flail her left arm and yell profanities as 

the officer tried to cuff her other wrist. Eventually the officer secured each 

wrist in handcuffs.

¶3 Once Ali was handcuffed, the backup officer tried to place her

inside the patrol vehicle. Initially, the officer sat Ali on the back seat, but 

with one leg inside the vehicle and the other leg outside the vehicle, Ali 

kicked the officer in the mid-thigh with the heel of her shoe. At the same 

time, Ali directed a slew of profanities and racial obscenities toward the 

 

1 Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the jury's verdicts and resolve all inferences against Ali. State v. 

Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013).
STATE v. ALI

Decision of the Court

3

officers. Officers finally placed Ali inside a "wrap" that allowed them to 

secure her in the patrol vehicle, then transported her to jail.2

¶4 A jury convicted Ali of aggravated assault under Arizona 

Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 13-1203 (2017) and -1204 (2017), 

resisting arrest under A.R.S. § 13-2508 (2017), and driving on a suspended 

license under A.R.S. § 28-3473(A) (2017).3 Upon sentencing, the superior 

court designated the resisting arrest conviction as a Class 1 misdemeanor. 

The court suspended imposition of sentence and imposed two concurrent 

terms of probation, the greater of which was two years, and one day of 

incarceration, with one day of credit for presentence incarceration.

¶5 Ali timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 

6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) 

(2017), 13-4031 (2017) and -4033 (2017).

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reflects Ali received a fair trial. She was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against her and was 

present at all critical stages. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings.

¶7 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence 

sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly comprised of 

eight members. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of 

the charged crimes, the State's burden of proof and the necessity of a 

unanimous verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which was 

confirmed by juror polling. The court received and considered a 

presentence report and imposed legal terms of probation for the crimes of 

which Ali was convicted.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none, and therefore affirm the convictions and resulting sentences. See 

Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300.

 

2 Described as a "blanket with straps," a "wrap" is intended to restrict 

the movement of an individual's arms, legs and head.

3 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute's current version.
STATE v. ALI

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Ali's

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than 

inform Ali of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, unless, 

upon review, counsel finds "an issue appropriate for submission" to the 

Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 

Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Ali has 30 days from 

the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration. Ali has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if she wishes, with a pro per petition for review.