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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KINYATTA SHANTELLE PERKINS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0755 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-158542-001

The Honorable George H. Foster, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jeffrey L. Force

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 7-17-2018
STATE v. PERKINS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Kinyatta Perkins appeals her convictions and sentences for 

two counts of disorderly conduct and one count of criminal damage. After 

searching the entire record, Perkins’s defense counsel identified no 

arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Therefore, in accordance with 

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

(1969), defense counsel asked this Court to search the record for 

fundamental error. Perkins was granted an opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. After reviewing the 

entire record, we find no fundamental error. Accordingly, Perkins’s

convictions and sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On December 3, 2016, Perkins called the victim, T.G., asking 

to come over to T.G.’s apartment.1 T.G. told Perkins no, but Perkins arrived

anyway and forced her way into the apartment. Perkins then pushed T.G. 

down onto the bed and began choking her in front of her nine-year-old son. 

T.G.’s seven-year-old son was in another room but heard the commotion

and saw Perkins choking her. T.G. hit Perkins over the head with a vase

and was eventually able to push Perkins out of the apartment, but not 

before Perkins knocked over T.G.’s television and broke a lamp.

¶3 After Perkins had left the apartment, both the nine-year-old

son and T.G. called 9-1-1. T.G. was examined by a forensic nurse, who 

documented scratches on T.G.’s throat and recommended she go to the 

emergency room to have her swollen neck examined.

 

1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” 

State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. 

Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)).
STATE v. PERKINS

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The State charged Perkins with one count of aggravated 

assault, a domestic violence offense; two counts of disorderly conduct —

one for each of the children present; and one count of criminal damage, a 

domestic violence offense. At a six-day trial, the State presented testimony 

from T.G., both children, the forensic nurse, and the officers involved in the 

case. It also played the nine-year-old’s 9-1-1 call to the jury. The State 

stipulated the damage to T.G.’s property was less than $250. Perkins moved

unsuccessfully for judgment of acquittal on the first three counts and then 

testified in her defense. The jury acquitted Perkins of aggravated assault

but convicted her of both counts of disorderly conduct and criminal 

damage. The jury did not find the criminal damage count was a domestic 

violence offense.

¶5 At sentencing, the trial court found Perkins was a nondangerous, non-repetitive offender, suspended her sentence, and placed 

her on two years of supervised probation. Perkins timely appealed, and we 

have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1),2 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Our review of the record reveals no fundamental error. See 

Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to 

produce any prejudicial error.”). As relevant here, a person commits 

disorderly conduct, a class one misdemeanor, “if, with intent to disturb the 

peace or quiet of a . . . family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, 

such person . . . [e]ngages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive 

behavior.” A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(1). “A person commits criminal damage by

. . . [r]ecklessly defacing or damaging property of another person.” A.R.S.

§ 13-1602(A)(1). Criminal damage is a class 2 misdemeanor if the person 

causes less than $250 in damage. A.R.S. § 13-1602(B)(6). The record 

contains sufficient evidence upon which the jury could determine beyond 

a reasonable doubt that Perkins was guilty of the charged offenses.

¶7 All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

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

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

at all critical stages, including the entire trial and verdict. See State v. Conner, 

163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages) (citations 

 

2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s 

current version.
STATE v. PERKINS

Decision of the Court

4

omitted); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical 

stages). The jury was properly comprised of eight jurors, and the record 

shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23; A.R.S. 

§ 21-102(B); 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 Perkins’s presumption of innocence. At sentencing, Perkins was given 

an opportunity to speak, and the court stated upon the record the evidence 

and materials it considered in sentencing. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. 

Additionally, the sentences are within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. § 13-

707(A).

CONCLUSION

¶8 Perkins’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

¶9 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Perkins’s 

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

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

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

our supreme court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584-85 (1984).

¶10 Perkins has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if she wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Perkins 

thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion 

for reconsideration.