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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

PETER BOROTA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0372

Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900CR201800844

 S0900CR201900262

 S0900CR201900577

 S0900CR201900578

The Honorable Dale P. Nielson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

The Rigg Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Pinetop

By Brett R. Rigg

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 7-12-2022
STATE v. BOROTA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 

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

Borota was on probation in four different matters until the superior court 

revoked his probation and sentenced him to an aggregate term of seven 

years in prison. Counsel for Borota has advised this court that counsel 

found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for 

fundamental error. Borota has been afforded an opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief in propria persona, and has done so. After reviewing the 

record, we affirm the revocation of probation and Borota’s sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In September 2019, Borota pled guilty to three counts of 

aggravated assault, class 5 felonies, two counts of aggravated DUI, class 4 

felonies, one count of unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement 

vehicle, a class 5 felony, one count of resisting arrest, a class 6 felony, and 

one count of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a class 1 

misdemeanor, in four different cases. The superior court accepted the plea, 

suspended the imposition of sentence, and placed Borota on intensive 

probation. It ordered him to serve two consecutive terms of four months in 

prison for the aggravated DUI convictions in CR201800844 and 

CR201900262.

¶3 In December 2020, the probation department filed a petition 

to revoke Borota’s probation, alleging eight violations of probation. After 

a contested hearing on the petition, the superior court found by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Borota violated seven terms of his 

probation. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. (“Rule”) 27.8(b)(3). The court found that 

the evidence established that Borota (1) was arrested for domestic violence

assault and domestic violence disorderly conduct, (2) possessed 

ammunition, (3) failed to participate in required counseling, (4) failed to 

maintain employment, (5) failed to pay his fines, (6) drank alcohol, and (7) 

failed to adhere to his intensive probation schedule by not being home 
STATE v. BOROTA

Decision of the Court

3

twice when he should have been. The court declined to find that Borota 

failed to do community service “simply because of Covid.”

¶4 The superior court sentenced Borota to the presumptive term 

of 2.5 years in prison for aggravated DUI in CR201800844, a maximum term 

of 3 years in prison for aggravated DUI in CR201900262, a maximum term

of 2 years in prison for aggravated assault in CR201900262, and a maximum 

term of 2 years in prison for unlawful flight in CR201900262, to be served 

concurrently, with credit for 339 days of presentence incarceration. In 

CR201900577, the court sentenced Borota to the maximum term of 2 years 

in prison for aggravated assault, the maximum term of 1.5 years in prison 

for resisting arrest, and 6 months in jail with credit for time served for 

misdemeanor DUI. The court ordered the sentences in CR201900577 to be 

served concurrently, but consecutive to the sentences in CR201800844 and 

CR201900262. In CR201900578, the court sentenced Borota to the maximum 

term of 2 years in prison for aggravated assault, to be served consecutive to 

CR201900577.

¶5 Borota timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to

Arizona Constitution Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review Borota’s probation revocation and sentences for 

fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). 

Counsel for Borota has advised this court that after a diligent search of the 

record counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have read and 

considered counsel’s brief and Borota’s supplemental brief. Much of 

Borota’s supplemental brief is dedicated to disputing the evidence 

supporting his underlying convictions. Because Borota pled guilty to those 

charges, in this appeal we only review the contested probation revocation 

proceedings and Borota’s sentences. See State v. Herrera, 121 Ariz. 12, 14 

(1978).

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Borota’s probation revocation 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with Rule 27.8. He was present 

and represented at all critical proceedings, and the court’s findings were 

well-supported by the record. Although Borota argues that the sentences 

imposed by the superior court were excessive and consecutive, they were 

within the statutory guidelines. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D); -711(A) (multiple 
STATE v. BOROTA

Decision of the Court

4

“sentences imposed by the court may run consecutively or concurrently, as 

determined by the court”). We find no fundamental error.

¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

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

further obligations, 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). Borota will have thirty days 

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

for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

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

revocation of Borota’s probation and the sentences imposed.