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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

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 C ounsel for Appellant FILED 8-18-2020STATE 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 Cy nthia J. Bailey 1 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. Jo h nathon Holgate was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Our obligation is to revi ew 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 Ari z. 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 damage d to her bedroom door
, w all , 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 s aid 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

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

. Officer M.S. pushed Holgate back on to the couch and stated that he was under
arrest

. Both officers attempted to place Holgat e in handcuffs but were

un successful until Officer Smith assisted them. D uring the struggle
, Holgate allegedly bit Sergeant K.O. T he State l ater 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 jur y 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. T he 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, t he court found that the State did not
prove Holgate had a historical prior felony conviction and s entenced 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 presenten ce 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 conviction s , and the sentence s imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, these proceedin gs were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Holgate ’s constitutional and statutory rights. W e therefore affirm Holgate ’s conviction s and sentence s

. ¶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 (19 84)

. 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.