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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

BRANDON STEPHEN LOPEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0392

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-125141-002

The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jeffrey L. Force

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. LOPEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal of restitution, taken pursuant to Anders v. 

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

for defendant Brandon Stephen Lopez has advised the court that, after 

searching the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law and 

asks this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Lopez was given 

the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se, but has not done so. This 

court has reviewed the record and has found no reversible error.

Accordingly, the restitution orders are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In December 2014, following a jury trial, Lopez was found 

guilty of one count of first degree felony murder and two counts of first 

degree burglary. In March 2015, the court sentenced Lopez to life in prison 

with the possibility of release after 25 years on the murder conviction, and 

terms of years on the burglary convictions. Those convictions and sentences 

were affirmed by this court on direct appeal and the mandate on that appeal 

has now issued. See State v. Lopez, 2016 WL 2893704 (App. May 17, 2016) 

(mem. dec.).

¶3 In July 2015, the superior court held an evidentiary restitution 

hearing. The court ordered Lopez to pay $491.85 in restitution for property 

damage, which Lopez did not dispute. Lopez did, however, dispute the 

$1,169.44 a victim was claiming for replacing a door through which Lopez 

had accessed the home. This victim claimed that, although Lopez did not 

damage the door, it was replaced for his family’s safety and peace of mind.

In August 2015, after having taken the matter under advisement, 

considering post-hearing briefs and following State v. Brady, 169 Ariz. 447 

(App. 1991), the court awarded the victim the additional $1,169.44. 

¶4 This court has jurisdiction over Lopez’ appeal of these 

restitution rulings pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 
STATE v. LOPEZ

Decision of the Court

3

Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), and 13-4031 13-4033(A)(20XX) (2016).1

DISCUSSION

¶5 The record shows that Lopez was represented by counsel at 

all stages of the proceedings and counsel was present at all critical stages.

The record provided contains substantial evidence supporting the 

restitution Lopez is ordered to pay. From the record, all proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

and the restitution orders imposed comply with the statutory requirements.

See A.R.S. § 13-804.

 

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. Lopez filed a 

delayed notice of appeal from the restitution orders, which was timely filed 

following an order granting him leave to do so. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.2, 

31.3.
STATE v. LOPEZ

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶6 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief, and has 

searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. State 

v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300 (1969); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 

1999). Accordingly, Lopez’ restitution orders are affirmed. 

¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Lopez of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense 

counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies 

an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by 

petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Lopez

shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, 

with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.