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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ABDIRIZAK KOSHIN MOHAMED, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0342 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2019-002879-001 

The Honorable Aryeh D. Schwartz, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Mark E. Dwyer

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 9-2-2021
STATE v. MOHAMED

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Abdirizak Mohamed appeals his conviction and 

sentence for criminal damage. Mohamed’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. Mohamed was 

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

resolving all reasonable inferences against Mohamed, see State v. Guerra, 161 

Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). After reviewing the entire record, we affirm. 

FACTUAL1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In February 2018, C.O. was leaving his apartment complex 

when he encountered Mohamed. Mohamed was walking down the 

sidewalk and started to cross in front of C.O.’s vehicle where the driveway 

and sidewalk connect. Mohamed claimed the vehicle came very close to 

him and he believed it was going to hit him. The two exchanged words. 

C.O. then backed up his vehicle and Mohamed threw a large rock causing 

a dent to the back fender of the vehicle’s passenger side. Mohamed claimed 

he threw the rock in self-defense after C.O. drove his car toward him at a 

high speed. After Mohamed threw the rock, C.O. exited his vehicle and

confronted Mohamed. C.O. claimed Mohamed then threw a brick and other 

rocks at him before walking away. Mohamed denies ever throwing 

anything at C.O. 

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, ¶ 3 n.2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. Valencia, 186 

Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)). 
STATE v. MOHAMED

Decision of the Court

3 

¶3 C.O. called the police who later arrested Mohamed outside of

a nearby mosque. While being booked at the police station, Mohamed

became agitated and spat at an officer. 

¶4 Mohamed was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault, 

a Class 3 and a Class 5 felony, and criminal damage, a Class 5 felony. Before 

trial, defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The trial court obliged. Following 

an evaluation and subsequent competency hearing, Mohamed was found

competent to stand trial. 

¶5 At trial, the court denied Mohamed’s motion for judgment of 

acquittal under Rule 20 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

¶6 The jury acquitted Mohamed of both assault counts but found 

him guilty of criminal damage. See A.R.S. § 13-1602. The court suspended 

Mohamed’s sentence and instead placed him on three years of supervised 

probation and ordered he pay $5,193 restitution. This timely appeal 

followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 

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

DISCUSSION

¶7 A person commits criminal damage by “[r]ecklessly defacing 

or damaging property of another person.” A.R.S. § 13-1602(A)(1). Here, 

Mohamed admitted to causing damage by throwing a rock at C.O.’s vehicle 

but claims he acted in self-defense. The jury was properly instructed on the 

theory of self-defense, but still found Mohamed guilty of criminal damage. 

See State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87, 90, ¶ 14 (2010) (noting “[a] defendant is 

entitled to a self-defense instruction if the record contains the ‘slightest 

evidence’ that he acted in self-defense” (quoting State v. Lujan, 136 Ariz. 102, 

104 (1983))). The record contains sufficient evidence for a jury to determine 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohamed was guilty of criminal damage. 

¶8 All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

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

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

was present at all critical stages, with the exception of his competency 

proceeding, which he voluntarily waived his right to be present at. See State 

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

(citations 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 A.R.S. § 21-102; 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The trial court properly instructed the jury of the 
STATE v. MOHAMED

Decision of the Court

4 

elements of the charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof, and 

Mohamed’s presumption of innocence. At sentencing, Mohamed was given 

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

materials, and factors it considered before placing Mohamed on probation. 

See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. Additionally, the length of the probation 

term was within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(4). 

CONCLUSION

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

find none; therefore, we affirm Mohamed’s conviction and term of 

probation. 

¶10 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Mohamed’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than 

inform Mohamed of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 

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

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

Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Mohamed has thirty days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for 

review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon the 

Court’s own motion, we also grant Mohamed thirty days from the date of 

this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.