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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GEORGE LOUIS BADERTSCHER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0169

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201300909

The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Stephen L. Duncan, Scottsdale

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Maurice Portley and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
STATE v. BADERTSCHER

Decision of the Court

2

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant George Louis 

Badertscher has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he 

has found no arguable question of law and asks this court to conduct an 

Anders review of the record. Badertscher was given the opportunity to file 

a supplemental brief pro se but has not done so. This court has reviewed 

the record and has found no reversible error. Accordingly, the revocation 

of Badertscher’s probation and resulting sentence are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In late June 2014, Badertscher was placed on supervised 

probation after pleading guilty to theft of a means of transportation, a Class 

3 felony. In August 2014, Badertscher’s probation officer received a tip that 

Badertscher was in violation of his probation conditions. A probation 

search of Badertscher’s house later that month revealed methamphetamine, 

related paraphernalia and a gun. Badertscher also signed a statement 

admitting to using methamphetamine and marijuana within the previous 

few weeks. Badertscher was arrested and, in a new case, charged with

possession or use of a dangerous drug, a Class 4 felony; possession or use 

of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony and two counts of misconduct 

involving weapons, each a Class 4 felony. As relevant here, Badertscher’s 

probation officer filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging 

Badertscher violated the following probation conditions: Standard 

Condition Nos. 1 (to maintain a crime-free lifestyle) and 12 (to not possess 

or use illegal drugs).

¶3 In the new case, after pretrial disclosure and motion practice, 

and a plea offer that Badertscher rejected at a hearing held pursuant to State 

v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000), a four-day jury trial took place in 

January 2016. After being instructed on the law and hearing evidence and 

argument, the jury deliberated and found Badertscher guilty of all four 

counts. The State and Badertscher’s counsel agreed that the guilty verdicts 

were an automatic violation of his probation.

¶4 At disposition, the court revoked Badertscher’s probation and 

sentenced him to a slightly mitigated sentence of 2.75 years in prison, with 

106 days of presentence incarceration credit, to be served consecutively to 

the sentences in the new case. Badertscher timely appealed the revocation 
STATE v. BADERTSCHER

Decision of the Court

3

of his probation and resulting sentence. This court has jurisdiction pursuant 

to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (2016).

1

DISCUSSION

¶5 The record shows that Badertscher was represented by 

counsel at all stages of the proceedings and counsel was present at all 

critical stages. The record provided contains substantial evidence 

supporting the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence. From the 

record, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within 

statutory limits and permissible ranges.

CONCLUSION

¶6 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has 

searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon, 

104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30. Accordingly, the revocation of 

Badertscher’s revocation and resulting sentence are affirmed. 

¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Badertscher of the status of his appeal and of his future options. 

Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel 

identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme 

Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 

(1984). Badertscher shall have 30 days from the date of the decision to 

proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition 

for review.

 

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.