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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

NICHOLE RHAE CHEE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0085

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201800092

The Honorable Cathleen Brown Nichols, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Coconino County Public Defender’s Office, Flagstaff

By Brad Bransky

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 2-22-2022
STATE v. CHEE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Nichole Rhae Chee appeals her convictions and sentences for 

manslaughter and two counts of endangerment. Chee’s counsel filed a brief 

per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 

(1969) advising us there are no meritorious grounds for reversal. Chee was 

granted an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona and 

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). After reviewing the 

record, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 One afternoon in October 2016, Chee drank several glasses of 

wine at her home. Chee then drove to a bar where she continued to drink 

alcohol. Realizing she was intoxicated, Chee attempted to get a ride home.

Chee grew tired of waiting, left the bar, and attempted to drive herself 

home.

¶3 Chee rear-ended a taxi, continued driving, swerved, and hit a 

pedestrian. The pedestrian later died due to injuries sustained in the 

collision. 

¶4 Police interviewed Chee at the scene and observed that Chee

had “bloodshot eyes,” was “slurring her speech,” and was “unsteady on 

her feet.” After performing poorly on field sobriety tests, Chee was arrested,

and her blood was drawn. The blood draw revealed a blood alcohol 

concentration of .235%.

¶5 Chee was charged with manslaughter, a Class two dangerous 

felony (“Count One”) and two counts of endangerment, each a Class six 

dangerous felony (“Counts Two and Three”).

¶6 At trial, Chee moved for directed verdict under Arizona Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 20 following the State’s presentation of the case. The 

court denied the motion as to Count One, but granted the motion as to the 
STATE v. CHEE

Decision of the Court

3

felony portions of Counts Two and Three, allowing the jury to consider 

them only as misdemeanors. The jury convicted Chee of manslaughter and 

two counts of misdemeanor endangerment. 

¶7 The trial court sentenced Chee to the presumptive term of 10.5 

years’ imprisonment on Count One, with presentence credit for 4 days 

served, and credit for time served on Counts Two and Three. Chee timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 

Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Chee was 

at all times represented by counsel and was present at all critical stages of 

the proceedings including the entire trial and the verdict. See State v. Conner, 

163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages); State v. Bohn, 116 

Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical stages). At trial, the jury 

was properly comprised of eight jurors, and the record shows no evidence 

of juror misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The trial 

court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses, 

the State’s burden of proof, and Chee’s presumption of innocence. At

sentencing, Chee was given an opportunity to speak, and the court stated 

on the record the evidence and materials it considered and the factors it 

found in imposing the sentences. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.

Additionally, the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. See

A.R.S. §§ 13-701 through -709 (as applicable).

¶9 Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any 

prejudicial error.”).

CONCLUSION

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

find none; therefore, we affirm Chee’s convictions and sentences.

¶11 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Chee’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more 

than inform Chee of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, 

unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to 

the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 

Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On this court’s motion, Chee has 30 days from the 
STATE v. CHEE

Decision of the Court

4

date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with an in propria persona

motion for reconsideration or petition for review.