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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SCOTT MICHAEL PARSONS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0255

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-048457-001

The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix

By Terry Reid

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. PARSONS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), 

following the revocation of Scott Michael Parsons's probation. Parsons's

counsel has searched the record and found no arguable question of law that 

is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 

738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Parsons 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 the revocation of Parsons's probation and the 

imposition of his sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In August 2012, Parsons pleaded guilty to one count of 

possession of narcotic drugs for sale.1 The superior court suspended

Parsons's sentence, placed him on probation for two years and ordered him 

to serve six months' incarceration. A month later, Parsons escaped from jail 

and his probation officer filed a petition to revoke his probation. After a 

hearing, the court reinstated Parsons on three years' probation. Upon filing 

of a second petition to revoke in April 2014, the court reinstated Parsons to 

three years of intensive probation and ordered him to serve three months' 

incarceration. In November 2014, his probation officer filed a third petition 

to revoke. Following a hearing, the court revoked probation and sentenced 

Parsons to four years' incarceration, with 253 days of presentence 

incarceration credit.

 

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

sustaining the findings of the court and resolve all inferences against 

Parsons. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).
STATE v. PARSONS

Decision of the Court

3

¶3 Parsons timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised 

Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), 13-4031 (2015) and -4033 (2016).2

DISCUSSION

¶4 Parsons was present and represented by counsel at all critical 

stages of the revocation proceeding. See State v. Jackson, 16 Ariz. App. 476, 

478 (1972) ("A defendant is entitled to the presence and participation of his 

counsel at the hearing on revocation of probation and at the resulting 

imposition of sentence."). The record reflects that the superior court 

afforded Parsons his rights under the federal and state constitutions and 

our statutes, and the revocation proceedings were conducted in accordance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶5 Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.8(b)(3), 

the State must prove a probation violation by a preponderance of the 

evidence. The court's determination that a defendant violated a probation 

term will not be reversed unless the determination is unsupported by any 

theory of the evidence. State v. Tatlow, 231 Ariz. 34, 39, ¶ 15 (App. 2012).

¶6 The court found the State proved by a preponderance of the 

evidence that Parsons violated two terms of his probation: One requiring 

him to live in an approved residential facility and another prohibiting him 

from using illegal drugs or controlled substances. Sufficient evidence 

supports the superior court's determination that Parsons violated 

probation. Parsons's probation officer testified Parsons was not living in an 

approved living facility and that he had admitted he had used 

methamphetamine.

¶7 Before sentencing Parsons, the court provided him an 

opportunity to speak. Thereafter, it revoked his probation and imposed a 

sentence within the statutory range for possession of narcotic drugs for sale, 

with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error. See 

Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.

 

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

a statute's current version. 
STATE v. PARSONS

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations 

pertaining to Parsons's representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Parsons of the outcome of this appeal 

and his 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, Parsons has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Parsons has 30 days 

from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition 

for review.