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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GEORGE LOUIS BADERTSCHER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0140

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201400821

The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Stephen L. Duncan, Scottsdale

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Maurice Portley and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
STATE v. BADERTSCHER

Decision of the Court

2

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant George Louis 

Badertscher has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he 

has found no arguable question of law and asks this court to conduct an 

Anders review of the record. Badertscher was given the opportunity to file 

a supplemental brief pro se but has not done so. This court has reviewed 

the record and has found no reversible error. Accordingly, Badertscher’s

convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In August 2014, Badertscher was on supervised probation for 

an unrelated offense. After receiving a tip that Badertscher was in violation 

of his probation, his probation officer conducted a probation search of

Badertscher’s house on August 19, 2014. The search revealed 

methamphetamine, related paraphernalia and a gun. Badertscher also 

signed a statement admitting to using methamphetamine and marijuana 

within the previous few weeks. Badertscher was arrested and charged with

possession or use of a dangerous drug, a Class 4 felony; possession or use 

of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony and two counts of misconduct 

involving weapons, each a Class 4 felony. The State timely alleged 

Badertscher had prior felony convictions on various dates, including for 

theft of a means of transportation and possession of marijuana and drug 

paraphernalia.

¶3 Badertscher moved to preclude admission of his prior felonies

and the State requested a hearing pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 609

(2016)1 regarding impeachment of Badertscher with his prior convictions if 

he elected to testify at trial. Counsel for the State and Badertscher stipulated 

that sanitized versions of his prior felony convictions less than 10 years old 

could be used for impeachment if he elected to testify at trial. The court 

ruled the State could use a sanitized version of Badertscher’s prior felony 

convictions older than 10 years for impeachment purposes and made 

appropriate findings under Rule 609. 

¶4 After a hearing about Badertscher’s statements of drug use,

the court found the statements violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 

384 U.S. 486 (1964), but were made voluntarily and could be used for 

 

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
STATE v. BADERTSCHER

Decision of the Court

3

impeachment if Badertscher testified at trial. The State made a plea offer 

that Badertscher rejected at a hearing held pursuant to State v. Donald, 198 

Ariz. 406 (App. 2000).

¶5 Trial was continued several times for various reasons. At one 

point, when defense counsel requested another continuance because new 

witnesses had been discovered, Badertscher objected and told the court he 

wanted to proceed to trial. The court, however, found the delay was caused 

by Badertscher and his late addition of witnesses. After reviewing the 

reasons for the decision and finding there would be no prejudice to 

Badertscher, the court continued the trial over Badertscher’s objection. 

¶6 After pretrial disclosure and motion practice, a four-day jury 

trial took place in January 2016. During trial, the State offered testimony 

from several police officers who searched Badertscher’s house, as well as 

lab experts who analyzed fingerprints, drugs and paraphernalia. After the 

State rested, Badertscher moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The court denied the 

motion. Badertscher then called as witnesses his brother and a friend. After 

being advised of his right to remain silent, Badertscher elected to testify in 

his own defense.

¶7 After the jury was instructed on the law and heard arguments 

from counsel, they deliberated and found Badertscher guilty as charged. 

The jury was polled and each juror answered individually that these were 

their true verdicts. 

¶8 At sentencing, after considering mitigating factors and letters 

of support, and given that the record showed (and Badertscher did not 

dispute) that he had at least two historical prior felony convictions, Arizona 

Revised Statute (A.R.S.) § 13-105(22), the court sentenced him as a category 

three repetitive offender, A.R.S. § 13-703. The court sentenced Badertscher

to concurrent, presumptive prison terms of 10 years for the dangerous 

drugs and misconduct involving weapons convictions and 3.75 years for 

the paraphernalia conviction, properly giving him 546 days of pre-sentence 

incarceration credit. Badertscher timely appealed his convictions and 

sentences. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 

13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 The record shows that Badertscher was represented by 

counsel at all stages of the proceedings and counsel was present at all 

critical stages. The record provided contains substantial evidence 
STATE v. BADERTSCHER

Decision of the Court

4

supporting Badertscher’s convictions and resulting sentences. From the 

record, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentences imposed were within 

statutory limits and permissible ranges.

CONCLUSION

¶10 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has 

searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon, 

104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). 

Accordingly, Badertscher’s convictions and resulting sentences are 

affirmed. 

¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Badertscher of the status of his appeal and of his future options. 

Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel 

identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme 

Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 

(1984). Badertscher shall have thirty days from the date of the decision to 

proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition 

for review.