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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0289

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-152413-001

The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Bain & Lauritano, PLC, Glendale

By Sheri M. Lauritano

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 7-10-2018
STATE v. RALSTON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

B E E N E, Judge:

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

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

following Christopher Robert Ralston’s (“Ralston”) conviction for assault, 

a class 1 misdemeanor. Ralston’s counsel searched the record on appeal 

and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See State v. 

Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Ralston has been afforded an opportunity 

to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. 

Counsel now asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Finding 

no revisable error, we affirm Ralston’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Ralston was charged with one count of aggravated assault 

and one count of unlawful imprisonment, both class six felonies and 

domestic violence offenses. The State subsequently moved to amend the 

complaint to dismiss the unlawful imprisonment charge and amend the 

aggravated assault charge to assault as a class one misdemeanor. The court 

granted the State’s unopposed motion and set a bench trial for December 8, 

2016.

¶3 At trial, a witness testified that she saw a man and a woman

arguing in a convenience store parking lot. The argument escalated, the 

man began punching the woman, and then he got in his truck and drove 

away. The witness could not identify Ralston, but she identified the victim.

¶4 The victim testified that she was Ralston’s girlfriend. Ralston 

confronted her in the parking lot outside of her work. She drove away, but 

he followed her to the convenience store parking lot. He approached her 

car and began hitting her, yelled profanities, tried to grab her purse, and 

 

1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict. State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2, ¶¶ 2-3 (App. 2015) (citation 

omitted).
STATE v. RALSTON

Decision of the Court

3

took her car keys. After this confrontation, he turned to walk back to his 

truck, and the victim asked him to give her car keys back. Ralston 

approached the victim’s car again and punched her in the eye.

¶5 After considering the evidence presented, the superior court 

found Ralston guilty of assault, a class one misdemeanor and a domestic 

violence offense. The court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. 

This timely appeal followed. 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 -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reflects no fundamental error in pretrial or trial 

proceedings. Ralston was represented by counsel and present at all critical 

stages in the proceedings. The superior court conducted two Donald2

hearings in Ralston’s presence.

¶7 The State presented direct and circumstantial evidence 

sufficient for the court to find that Ralston committed the offense. At 

sentencing, the State initially recommended that the court impose a term of 

six months’ imprisonment and a deferred term of six months’ 

imprisonment contingent on successful completion of three years 

probation. The court rejected the recommendation, stating that six months’

imprisonment is the maximum term for a misdemeanor. The State 

amended its recommendation. The court’s disposition was within statutory 

limits. See A.R.S. § 13-707(A)(1).

¶8 After sentencing, Ralston filed a motion to amend his 

sentence, arguing that he was not provided with proper medical care while 

incarcerated. The court properly denied the motion because it did not 

contain “the precise legal points, statutes, and authorities relied upon” for 

relief as required by Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.1(a) (2017).

3

CONCLUSION

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

find none; therefore, we affirm the conviction and resulting sentence.

 

2 State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 2000).

3 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 35.1 was replaced by 

Rule 1.9 in January 2018 but remains substantially the same.
STATE v. RALSTON

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligation 

pertaining to Ralston’s representation in this appeal will end. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Ralston of the outcome of this appeal 

and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds “an issue 

appropriate for submission” to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the Court’s own 

motion, Ralston has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he 

wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Further, Ralston has 30 

days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per 

petition for review.