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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SAMMANTHA LUCILLE REBECCA ALLEN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0106 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-138856-003

The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Zhivago Law, PLLC, Phoenix

By Kerri Droban Zhivago

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 12-19-2023
STATE v. ALLEN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen appeals her sentence for 

one count of negligent child abuse. Defense counsel filed a brief pursuant 

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

(1969), advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Allen was 

given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did 

not do so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Allen’s sentence.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In the summer of 2011, Allen and her husband lived with the 

victim, a ten-year-old girl. One evening in July, the couple forced the victim 

to engage in hours of calisthenics as punishment for taking a popsicle. This 

included forcing the victim to remain in a backbend position with her feet 

and head on the floor for at least one hour. Before the couple went to sleep 

that evening, they locked the victim inside a storage box in a room without 

air-conditioning, where the victim would eventually asphyxiate and die. 

¶3 A jury convicted Allen of one count of first-degree felony 

murder, a class 1 felony, one count of conspiracy to commit child abuse, a 

class 2 felony, two counts of intentional or knowing child abuse, class 2 

felonies, and one count of negligent child abuse, a class 6 felony. As relevant 

here, the jury found Allen committed negligent child abuse by forcing the 

victim to “do backbends for hours.” The jury found aggravating factors 

applied and death to be an appropriate sentence for murdering the victim.

The superior court sentenced Allen to death for the murder conviction, and

to maximum and aggravated terms of imprisonment for the remaining 

convictions. Regarding the negligent child abuse count, the jury found only 

one aggravating factor, that the offense involved the “presence of an 

accomplice,” and the court sentenced Allen to the aggravated term of two 

years’ imprisonment. See A.R.S. §§ 13-701(D)(4), -702(D).

1 In a separate trial, 

1 We cite to the current versions of the applicable statutes because no 

revisions material to this decision have since been made.
STATE v. ALLEN

Decision of the Court

3

Allen’s husband was convicted of similar offenses and sentenced to death. 

See State v. Allen, 248 Ariz. 352, 357–58, ¶¶ 1, 5 (2020).

¶4 On automatic appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed 

Allen’s convictions and sentences, except her sentence for negligent child 

abuse. See State v. Allen, 253 Ariz. 306, 364, ¶ 227 (2022). Allen argued, and 

the State conceded, that the superior court’s use of a single factor to 

aggravate her sentence for negligent child abuse constituted fundamental 

error. Id. at 361, 363, ¶¶ 211, 220. Agreeing with the parties, the Court

explained, “[t]o impose a maximum sentence, at least one aggravator must 

be found, A.R.S. § 13-701(C), but to impose an aggravated sentence, at least 

two aggravating circumstances must be found for a first-time offender, 

§ 13-702(C).” Id. at 362, ¶ 213. The Court found the sentence to be unlawful, 

constituting fundamental error. Id. at 363, ¶ 220. The Court vacated Allen’s

sentence for negligent child abuse and remanded for resentencing. Id.

¶5 At resentencing, the superior court confirmed that it reviewed 

the case file and the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion. The State 

recommended the maximum term of 1.5 years’ imprisonment. See A.R.S. 

§ 13-702(D). Allen did not oppose this recommendation. The court 

sentenced Allen to a term of 1.5 years’ imprisonment based on the jury’s 

finding of “presence of an accomplice” as an aggravating factor. This timely 

appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the 

Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 

13-4033(A)(4).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have reviewed the portions of the record relevant to 

resentencing and have not found any reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 

300. The resentencing proceeding was conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed fell within 

the statutory range. See A.R.S. § 13-702(D). The superior court acted within 

its discretion in imposing a maximum sentence based on the aggravating 

factor found by the jury. See Allen, 253 Ariz. at 362, ¶ 213; see also A.R.S. 

§ 13-701(C). Allen was present and represented by counsel at the 

proceeding. See State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at 

critical stages); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at 

critical stages). Nothing during the proceeding was unfairly prejudicial to

Allen nor was she deprived any constitutional protections.
STATE v. ALLEN

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶7 We have reviewed the record for reversible error and find 

none. Accordingly, we affirm Allen’s sentence as modified. After this 

decision’s filing, defense counsel’s obligations in this appeal will end. 

Defense counsel need do no more than inform Allen 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). Allen has 30 days 

from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with an in propria 

persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.