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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER PAUL ARTER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0767

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201300968

The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt, PLLC, Tucson

By Harriette P. Levitt

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ARTER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Christopher Arter (“Defendant”) appeals from the revocation 

of his probation and resulting prison sentence. Defendant’s counsel filed a 

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State 

v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this Court that after a search of the 

entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant

was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but 

has not done so. 

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

for reversible error.” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (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 13-4033(A)(1) (West 2016).1 Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History2

¶3 In November 2013, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of 

forgery, a class four felony. In December 2013, he was sentenced to a 

probation term of four years. As a condition of his probation, Defendant 

agreed to obey all laws. In May 2014, Defendant’s probation officer filed a 

petition to revoke his probation, alleging that he had violated the terms of 

 

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

applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have 

occurred.

2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 

(1989).
STATE v. ARTER

Decision of the Court

3

his probation by committing six new felony offenses, including possession 

of narcotics and dangerous drugs for sale, possession of drug

paraphernalia, and possession of a forged instrument.3 

¶4 Defendant was initially found incompetent to stand trial, but 

was later found to be competent after completing a competency restoration 

program. 

¶5 In June 2015, the court held a contested probation revocation 

hearing. At the hearing, a Phoenix Police detective testified that in May 

2014, he and another detective observed Defendant and a female driver 

leaving a known drug house and pulled them over for a traffic infraction. 

The detectives arrested Defendant after observing him attempt to hide 

some illegal drugs. The detectives subsequently found methamphetamine, 

a pill bottle, small baggies, hydrocodone and carisoprodol pills, a syringe, 

and counterfeit money in Defendant’s possession. When police questioned

Defendant, he admitted the drugs were his, and that he had purchased the 

drugs with the intent to resell them. 

¶6 The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that 

Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation by possessing 

methamphetamine, possessing narcotics and dangerous drugs for sale, and 

possessing drug paraphernalia. 

¶7 In October 2015, the court revoked Defendant’s probation and 

sentenced him to a mitigated prison term of 1.75 years with 588 days’ of 

pre-incarceration credit. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and this 

court has jurisdiction.

Discussion

¶8 We review Defendant’s probation revocation for fundamental 

error. State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155 (1991). We have read and 

considered the brief, carefully searched the entire record for error and 

found none. See Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49. All of the proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 

and substantial evidence supported the court’s determination that 

Defendant violated his probation. Defendant was present and represented 

by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At disposition, 

 

3 Defendant was arrested and indicted for these six new felonies in 

Mohave Superior Court Case No. CR2014-00655. Defendant was 

subsequently found guilty of these charge after a jury trial. 
STATE v. ARTER

Decision of the Court

4

Defendant and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak and the 

court imposed a legal sentence.

Conclusion

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court’s revocation of 

Defendant’s probation and resulting prison sentence. 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 (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.