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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOHNATHON DANIEL HOLGATE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0609 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201801031

The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael O’Toole

Counsel for Appellee

The Zickerman Law Office PLLC, Flagstaff

By Adam Zickerman

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-18-2020
STATE v. HOLGATE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey1 joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is presented to us pursuant to Anders v. California, 

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

has searched the record on appeal and advised us there are no meritorious 

grounds for reversal. Johnathon Holgate was given the opportunity to file 

a supplemental brief but did not do so. Our obligation is to review the 

entire record for reversible error, State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 

1999), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Holgate, State v. 

Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). 

¶2 On July 7, 2018, police responded to a 911 domestic violence 

call from R.J.’s home. While speaking with Officer Smith, R.J. told him there 

was no domestic violence issue, but she simply wanted Holgate to leave

because he had been there for three days without permission and had 

caused damaged to her bedroom door, wall, and leather couch. 

¶3 Sergeant K.O. and Officer M.S. arrived shortly thereafter and 

entered the home; Holgate was sitting on the couch at the time. Holgate 

then stood up and said he was going to “get a cigarette” in the garage. 

Officer M.S. told Holgate to sit back down because he was unsure if Holgate 

had access to weapons in the residence or in the garage. Holgate kept 

moving toward the garage, however, shoving Officer M.S. aside. Officer 

M.S. pushed Holgate back onto the couch and stated that he was under 

arrest. Both officers attempted to place Holgate in handcuffs but were 

unsuccessful until Officer Smith assisted them. During the struggle, 

Holgate allegedly bit Sergeant K.O. The State later indicted Holgate on 

felony charges of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of resisting 

1 Judge Cynthia J. Bailey replaces the Honorable Kenton D. Jones, who 

was originally assigned to this panel. Judge Bailey has read the brief and 

reviewed the record.
STATE v. HOLGATE

Decision of the Court

3

arrest, one count of criminal trespass in the first degree, and a misdemeanor 

count of criminal damage. 

¶4 At trial, the jury was presented with all counts except criminal 

damage, which was tried to the court after it ruled that Holgate was not 

entitled to a jury trial on that charge. The jury found Holgate not guilty on 

the aggravated assault charge involving Sergeant K.O., but guilty on the 

remaining charges. The court then determined that Holgate was guilty of 

criminal damage. At sentencing, the court found that the State did not 

prove Holgate had a historical prior felony conviction and sentenced him 

to concurrent presumptive prison terms for the felony convictions, the 

longest of which was 2.5 years, and time served for the misdemeanor

conviction. Holgate was given credit for 448 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. This timely appeal followed. 

¶5 After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible 

error. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. The record reflects Holgate was present 

and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings against 

him. The evidence presented supports the convictions, and the sentences

imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record 

reveals, these proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure and Holgate’s constitutional and statutory 

rights. We therefore affirm Holgate’s convictions and sentences.

¶6 Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be 

appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, his obligations are 

fulfilled once he informs Holgate of the outcome of this appeal and his

future options. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Holgate has 

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

per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.