NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

COURTNEY KANWEI MATZKANIN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. SO300CR20071005

The Honorable Jacqueline Hatch, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Coconino County Public Defender’s Office, Flagstaff

By Brad Bransky

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. MATZKANIN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the 

Court, in which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Andrew W. Gould

joined.

W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Courtney Kanwei Matzkanin (“Appellant”) appeals the trial 

court’s finding of a probation violation and his resulting sentence. 

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 

528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. 

Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the 

record on appeal and formed the opinion that no viable appeal issues 

exist. Appellant’s counsel nevertheless requests that we consider this 

appeal. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999)

(stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error). In 

addition, this court has allowed Appellant to file a supplemental brief in 

propria persona, but he has not done so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona 

Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 

sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (West 2014),1 13-4031, and 13-4033(A). Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶3 In April 2010, Appellant pled no contest to the crime of 

aggravated assault-DV, a class three felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-

1204(A)(2) and 13-3601. The trial court found him guilty as charged, 

suspended sentencing, and placed him on intensive probation for five 

 1 We cite the current Westlaw version of the applicable statutes 

because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred.

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

revocation of probation and resolve all reasonable inferences against 

Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 

1994).
STATE v. MATZKANIN

Decision of the Court

3

years, with the term of probation to begin after his release from prison on 

other matters.

¶4 Appellant’s probation began on July 11, 2013. As required 

by the terms of his probation, Appellant was obligated to abide by 

numerous conditions, and he was advised that if he violated any of these 

conditions, a revocation petition could be filed and the trial court could 

impose a prison sentence.

¶5 In September 2013, Appellant’s probation officer filed a 

petition to revoke Appellant’s probation, alleging he violated four 

conditions of his probation: Condition 1, that Appellant maintain a crimefree lifestyle by obeying all laws; Condition 11 (Uniform Condition 10), 

that Appellant participate in and cooperate with any program of 

counseling or assistance as directed; Condition 12 (Uniform Conditions 7 

and 9), that Appellant not possess or use illegal drugs or controlled 

substances, and submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed; and 

Condition 21.2 (Uniform Condition 25 and Intensive Condition 2), that 

Appellant perform not less than 40 hours of community service each 

month.3

¶6 In support of the petition, the State presented testimony 

from Appellant’s probation officer, as well as the following evidence: As 

to Condition 11, the State presented a notification of non-compliance from 

Appellant’s counseling center, indicating Appellant failed to attend 

mandatory domestic violence counseling on at least two occasions. As to 

Condition 12, the State offered records indicating Appellant failed to 

report for random urinalysis testing as directed on three occasions. As to 

Condition 21.2, the State introduced a letter from the Community Service 

Coordinator, Adult Probation, stating Appellant failed to complete his 

mandatory community service hours for the months of August and 

September. The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that 

 3 Appellant did not challenge the apparent discrepancy in the 

numbering of the probation conditions in the trial court, and has not 

raised an issue with regard to their numbering on appeal. The record 

makes clear, however, that Appellant was made fully aware of the 

violations the State was alleging he had committed.
STATE v. MATZKANIN

Decision of the Court

4

Appellant had violated all but the first of the conditions alleged by the 

State.4

¶7 After finding Appellant in violation of his intensive 

probation, the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to a 

presumptive term of three and one half years’ incarceration in the Arizona 

Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). Appellant received 254 days of 

pre-sentence incarceration credit.5 Appellant filed a timely notice of 

appeal.

ANALYSIS

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 

537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence in support of the court’s finding of 

Appellant’s probation violations was substantial and supports the court’s 

judgment and orders. Appellant was represented by counsel at critical 

stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at 

sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his 

constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure.

¶9 After filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Appellant’s representation in this appeal have ended. 

Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the 

appeal and of his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue 

appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See 

State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). 

Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he 

desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

 4 The State chose not to pursue the alleged violation of Condition 1.

5 After Appellant filed his notice of appeal, but before Appellant 

filed his opening brief, the trial court issued a minute entry, dated March 

4, 2014, modifying Appellant’s pre-sentence incarceration credit to reflect 

an additional 269 days, bringing Appellant’s total pre-sentence 

incarceration credit to 523 days. The trial court’s March 4 minute entry 

was not included in the record on appeal, and we make no comment on 

the propriety of that minute entry.
STATE v. MATZKANIN

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm the trial court’s finding that Appellant violated 

the conditions of his probation and the court’s decision to revoke 

Appellant’s probation and sentence him to incarceration in ADOC.