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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0505

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2012-116919-001

The Honorable Nicole M. Brickner, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFRIMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael O’Toole

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Kevin D. Heade

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-4-2020
STATE v. PIERSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

C A M P B E L L, 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. Appellant George Pierson 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 superior court’s verdict. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). Having 

done so, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2013, Pierson pled guilty to one count of kidnapping, a 

class 2 felony, and two counts of attempted sexual assault, both class 3 

felonies. In accordance with the plea agreement, the superior court 

sentenced Pierson to seven years’ imprisonment on the kidnapping charge, 

suspended imposition of sentencing on the remaining counts, and placed 

Pierson on lifetime probation. 

¶3 In July 2019, the adult probation department (“APD”) 

petitioned to revoke Pierson’s probation. As relevant here, APD alleged 

that Pierson violated multiple conditions of his probation by: (1) repeatedly 

deviating from his written schedule, (2) possessing sexually stimulating 

material, (3) using a device with internet access capability, (4) accessing the 

internet without approval, (5) and failing to comply with GPS monitoring 

requirements.

¶4 At the probation violation hearing, Pierson’s probation officer 

testified that APD reviewed the terms of probation with Pierson in person 

and he acknowledged and received a copy of the terms. The probation 

officer further testified that Pierson: (1) acknowledged deviating from his 

written schedule and visiting multiple businesses without APD approval in 

a signed behavior report, and (2) admitted using a smart phone to “watch 
STATE v. PIERSON

Decision of the Court

3

YouTube and connect [to] Wi-Fi” after the officer discovered his device.

Upon unlocking the phone, the officer found multiple opened windows to 

pornographic websites. Pierson also testified and stated that he failed to 

comply with the GPS monitoring requirements because his monitoring 

device was defective.

¶5 At the conclusion of the hearing, the superior court expressly 

found Pierson’s testimony not credible and determined he violated five 

conditions of his probation. The court revoked Pierson’s probation on one 

count of attempted sexual assault, imposed a presumptive term of 3.5-

years’ imprisonment, and reinstated Pierson’s lifetime probation on the 

second count. Pierson timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

him. The evidence presented supports the superior court’s finding that 

Pierson violated the terms of his probation, and the disposition imposed 

falls within the range permitted by law. The record confirms the

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure and Pierson’s constitutional and statutory rights. 

Therefore, we affirm the superior court’s finding that Pierson violated his 

probation, its imposition of a term of imprisonment, and its disposition

continuing him on probation.

¶7 Unless defense counsel finds an issue that may be 

appropriately submitted to the Arizona Supreme Court, his obligations are 

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

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