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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ADRIAN CORNELIO SELBY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0225 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

Nos. V1300CR202180656

 V1300CR202180657

The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

The Zickerman Law Office, PLLC, Flagstaff

By Adam Zickerman

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

FILED 05-28-2024
STATE v. SELBY

Decision of the Court

2

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Adrian Selby appeals the superior court’s orders revoking his 

probation and sentencing him to nine months in prison. Selby’s counsel 

has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and State v. Rodriguez, 19 Ariz. App. 120 

(1973) (applying Anders procedure to probation revocation proceedings), 

advising this court that he reviewed the record and was unable to identify 

any arguable, non-frivolous question of law. Selby’s counsel requests that 

we independently review the record for fundamental error. See State v. 

Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews 

the entire record for reversible error). Selby was provided an opportunity 

to file a pro se brief but did not do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 The State charged Selby with offenses that occurred on two 

separate occasions in 2021. The offenses were consolidated and in 

December 2021, Selby pled guilty to two counts of fraudulent use of a credit 

card, a class 6 designated felony in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) Section 13-2105(A)(1). The superior court gave Selby credit for 

time served and sentenced him to three years’ supervised probation. The 

court also ordered Selby to complete ten hours of community restitution 

within 30 days of its order. About two years later, Selby petitioned to 

modify the conditions of his probation because he did not make enough 

money to pay both his living expenses and the court fines and fees. The 

court granted his request and allowed Selby to reduce his financial 

obligations by completing community restitution hours.

¶3 In March 2023, Selby was arrested for suspicion of driving 

under the influence of alcohol and fleeing the scene of a car accident. Selby 

told the deputy that he drank eight shots of liquor before getting into 

another vehicle. A few days later, the probation department petitioned to 

revoke Selby’s probation, alleging he had violated his probationary terms

by failing to maintain a crime-free lifestyle.

¶4 The superior court held a probation violation hearing and 

revoked Selby’s probation. The court sentenced him to two presumptive 

nine-month terms to run concurrently, with 96 days of presentence 

incarceration credit.

¶5 We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona 

Constitution and Sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1). 
STATE v. SELBY

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have reviewed and considered counsel’s brief and 

reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. Clark, 196 

Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. A probation violation “must be established by a 

preponderance of the evidence[,]” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.8(b)(3), and we will 

affirm the superior court’s finding of a probation violation “unless it is 

arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” State v. Moore, 125 

Ariz. 305, 306 (1980). 

¶7 Here, the court found that the State met its burden to prove 

the probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The record 

shows that the sentence imposed upon revocation of Selby’s probation was 

within the permitted range in his plea agreement. Accordingly, the court 

acted within its discretion by revoking Selby’s probation and sentencing 

him within the appropriate sentencing range. See A.R.S. § 13-917(B) 

(permitting the superior court to revoke probation and impose a prison 

term allowed by law). 

¶8 Further, the proceedings did not violate Selby’s constitutional 

or statutory rights and complied with the Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Selby was represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings, was present at all critical stages, and spoke at the sentencing 

hearing. We find no reversible error. 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the superior court’s finding that Selby violated a condition of his 

probation, its decision to revoke his probation, and to impose the resulting 

sentence. Upon filing of this decision, Selby’s counsel shall inform him of 

the status of his appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no further 

obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue that may be 

appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Selby has 30 days 
STATE v. SELBY

Decision of the Court

4

from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion 

for reconsideration or petition for review.