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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

BRADLEY SCOTT THOMASON, 

Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0089 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2019-127123-001

The Honorable Michael C. Blair, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Lawrence S. Matthew

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-08-2022

AMENDED PER ORDER FILED 3-08-2022
STATE v. THOMASON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Bradley Scott Thomason appeals his convictions and 

sentences for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Counsel for 

Thomason filed a brief stating “there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on 

direct appeal.” Citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. 

Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), counsel asks this court to review the record for 

fundamental error. Thomason had the chance to file a supplemental brief 

but did not. After reviewing the record, we find no fundamental error and 

thus affirm Thomason’s convictions and sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In May 2019, Thomason went to a Motor Vehicle Department 

facility to contest the suspension of his license. Thomason spoke with a 

customer service representative at a kiosk in the lobby. He insisted his 

license was not suspended. The representative disagreed. Thomason 

became irate and began yelling profanities at the representative.

¶3 A police officer for the Arizona Department of Transportation 

heard the commotion and responded to the lobby, where he and another 

officer witnessed Thomason yelling profanities at the representative. Both 

officers, wearing duty belts and uniforms bearing badges and nametags, 

approached Thomason. One officer asked Thomason what was happening. 

Thomason answered with profanity and called the officers “rent-a-cops.”

The officers asked Thomason to accompany them outside. He refused. One 

officer grabbed Thomason by his right arm and escorted him outside. 

¶4 Once outside, the officer released Thomason, who threw his 

belongings to the ground, including a backpack, paperwork and bike seat.

Although ordered to stand back, Thomason then walked toward the officer, 

who pushed Thomason back. Thomason grabbed his bike seat and 

assumed an “aggressive stance.” The officer twice ordered Thomason to 

drop the bike seat. He refused. 
STATE v. THOMASON

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 The officers seized Thomason by the arm and said he was 

under arrest. Thomason resisted, flailing his arms. To gain control, an 

officer performed a foot sweep, which caused all three of them to fall to the 

ground. For several minutes, the officers struggled to control and handcuff 

Thomason. With his stomach on the ground, Thomason ignored the 

officers’ orders to place his hands behind his back and instead thrashed 

around, kicking his legs and wedging his hands beneath his stomach. After 

more officers arrived, Thomason was handcuffed. 

¶6 The State charged Thomason with resisting arrest and 

disorderly conduct. Thomason pled not guilty on both charges and waived 

his right to a jury trial. Thomason and three police officers testified at a 

two-day bench trial. Thomason blamed the officers for escalating the 

conflict. The court convicted Thomason on both charges. It sentenced 

Thomason to one year of supervised probation on both charges, to be 

served concurrently. Thomason timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See

Ariz. Const., art. 6, sec. 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find 

none. Thomason was present at all stages of the proceeding and 

represented by counsel at all critical stages. The record reflects that the 

superior court afforded Thomason all his constitutional and statutory 

rights, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial 

hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was 

enough to support the court’s verdict. Thomason’s sentence falls within the 

range prescribed by law.
STATE v. THOMASON

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm Thomason’s conviction and sentence. Counsel’s 

obligations in this appeal will end once Thomason is informed of the 

outcome and his future options, unless counsel detects an issue appropriate 

for the Arizona Supreme Court’s review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584-85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Thomason has 30 days from the

date of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion for reconsideration or

petition for review.