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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

BRENDA BANKS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0769

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-448616-002

The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern, Chandler

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
STATE v. BANKS

Decision of the Court

2

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Brenda Banks (“Defendant”) appeals from her convictions

and sentences for two counts of aggravated assault, class five felonies, and 

two counts of resisting arrest, class six felonies. Defendant’s counsel filed 

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State 

v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising this Court that after a search of the 

entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant 

was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and did not 

do so. 

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record 

for reversible error.” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 

Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (West 2015).1 Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶3 Police were called to a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses 

at 1:30 on a Sunday afternoon in early October 2013. The Kingdom Hall 

was not open for services at the time, but a man and his family were sitting 

outside of the building causing a disturbance. The man, Henry Paskins, 

was shirtless as he waved a Bible around and chanted out loud; his mother,

the Defendant, his wife Nichole Davis, and his daughter sat as his audience. 

¶4 The first officer on the scene approached Henry, informed 

him he was trespassing, and asked him to leave. He refused, so the officer 

called for more support. Ultimately, five officers and three of the 

congregation elders were called to the Kingdom Hall to address the 

disturbance. Before the police again engaged the family, one of the elders 

 

1 Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the 

applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have 

occurred.

2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 

(1989).
STATE v. BANKS

Decision of the Court

3

approached the family and asked them to leave. Henry stated, however,

that he and his family would not leave. 

¶5 The officers ultimately decided to arrest Henry for 

trespassing in the hope that the rest of the family would leave the premises. 

The officers’ plan was that two officers would arrest Henry while the 

remaining officers kept the family members from interfering. When the

officers reached for Henry’s hands to handcuff him, he forcefully resisted 

and a physical altercation ensued. Both Defendant and Henry’s wife joined 

the scuffle attempting to stop the officers from arresting Henry. Defendant 

hit officer Yamamori twice, once on the shoulder and once in the face and 

then ran over to Sergeant Hawkins, who was physically struggling with

Henry, and hit him in the head before being knocked over and subdued 

herself. Once on the ground, Defendant continued to struggle as officers 

Yamamori and Dittman handcuffed her and placed her under arrest.

¶6 Henry, Nichole, and Defendant were charged as codefendants in one joint indictment. Defendant was indicted for the 

following offenses: count seven, aggravated assault, as to Officer Dittman; 

count eight, aggravated assault, as to Officer Hawkins; count nine, 

Aggravated Assault, as to Officer Yamamori; count ten, resisting arrest, and 

count eleven, resisting arrest. The basis for the resisting arrest charge in 

count ten was that Defendant acted as an accomplice in Henry’s efforts to 

resist arrest. 

¶7 Defendant was tried with her co-defendants, Henry and 

Nichole. Before the case was submitted to the jury, the State dismissed 

Count Seven. The jury found Defendant guilty of the remaining two counts 

of aggravated assault, class five felonies, and two counts of resisting arrest, 

class six felonies. 

¶8 The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed 

Defendant on probation for 18 months. Defendant timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶9 We have read and considered counsel’s brief, carefully 

searched the entire record for reversible error and found none. Clark, 196 

Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence 

supported the finding of guilt. Defendant was present and represented by 

counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing, Defendant 

and her counsel were given an opportunity to speak and the court imposed 

a legal sentence.
STATE v. BANKS

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Defendant’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more 

than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and her future options, 

unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the 

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

582, 584-85 (1984). Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if she so desires, with an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.