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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

YAK MADUT YAK, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0874 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2002-016724 

The Honorable John R. Doody, 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 Carlos Daniel Carrion

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-3-2017
STATE v. YAK

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Yak Madut Yak appeals the revocation of his probation and 

resulting prison sentence. After searching the record on appeal and finding 

no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Yak’s counsel filed a brief in 

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

104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel asks this court to search the record for 

fundamental error. Yak was informed of his right to file a supplemental 

brief, in propria persona. We have not received a brief. After reviewing the 

entire record, we find no fundamental error and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 In 2003 Yak pleaded guilty to aggravated driving under the 

influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, a class 4 felony. The trial court 

sentenced him to a term of four months’ imprisonment and three years’ 

probation. 

¶3 Yak’s standard probation began in October 2003. He was 

reinstated to five years of intensive probation in May 2006 and reinstated 

on standard probation for three years in April 2007. After Yak was released 

from prison in December 2015 on another matter, he continued serving his 

probation in this matter. 

¶4 Yak’s conditions of probation required him to reside in an 

adult probation department (“APD”) approved residence and participate 

in approved counseling programs. Due to his failure to comply with the 

terms and conditions of his probation, APD filed a petition to revoke his 

probation. 

 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial 

court’s finding of a probation violation. See State v. Vaughn, 217 Ariz. 518, 

n. 2 (App. 2008). 
STATE v. YAK

Decision of the Court

3 

¶5 At the revocation hearing, Yak’s probation officer testified he

provided written directives requiring Yak to report to an APD approved 

residence and counseling program. Yak acknowledged his understanding 

by signing the terms and conditions of his probation which were more fully 

set forth in the written directives. Yak did report, but failed to stay, at the 

APD approved residence, and failed to contact and participate in the 

counseling program. 

¶6 The trial court found that Yak violated probationary terms 4 

and 10. The defendant waived any delay and the trial court proceeded to 

disposition. The court revoked Yak’s probation and imposed the 

presumptive term of two and one half years in prison. Yak timely filed a 

notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Yak was represented by counsel at all 

stages of the proceedings. At the revocation hearing, the State presented 

evidence sufficient to find, by a preponderance, Yak violated the terms of 

his probation. It is not the function of this court to reweigh evidence. See 

State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). Yak had an opportunity to speak 

at sentencing. Finally, the court weighed both aggravating and mitigating 

factors presented and Yak’s sentence was within the range of permissible 

sentences for his offense. We will uphold a trial court’s finding of a violation 

“unless it is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” State v. 

Moore, 125 Ariz. 305, 306 (1980). 

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm the trial court’s probation violation finding and 

resulting sentence. Counsel’s obligation pertaining to Yak’s representation 

in this appeal has ended. Defense counsel need do nothing more than 

inform Yak of the status of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon 

review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona
STATE v. YAK

Decision of the Court

4 

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

85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, we also grant Yak 30 days from the 

date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration 

or petition for review.