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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LEE MOSTAFA HOSSEINI, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0366 

FILED 6-1-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

Nos. P1300CR202001231

P1300CR202001400

V1300CR202180213

The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

The Zickerman Law Office PLLC, Flagstaff

By Adam Zickerman

Counsel for Appellant

AMENDED PER ORDER FILED 6-02-2023
STATE v. HOSSEINI

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Lee 

Hosseini has advised this court that he has found no arguable questions of 

law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Hosseini 

pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal damage, two counts of 

aggravated harassment, and one count of destruction of or injury to public 

jail. After violating the terms of his probation, he was sentenced to prison 

for a total of three years. He was given an opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief in propria persona; he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we 

affirm Hosseini’s convictions and sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Hosseini. See State 

v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). In October 2020, the State 

charged Hosseini with aggravated harassment and disorderly conduct,

alleging that he had disturbed and harassed his neighbors while an order 

of protection against him was still in place. About a month later, the State 

charged Hosseini with one count of aggravated assault, one count of 

criminal littering or polluting, two counts of criminal damage, and one 

count of criminal trespass in the third degree. The State alleged that 

Hosseini had again harassed his neighbors, damaged their property, and 

trespassed on their property. It also alleged that Hosseini had littered by 

placing cement bags on public property. About five months later, the State 

charged Hosseini with criminal damage and destruction of a public jail, 

alleging that Hosseini, while in custody, had damaged the jail windows, 

walls, and towel racks.

¶3 Hosseini entered into a plea agreement in all three cases and 

pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal damage, two counts of 

aggravated harassment, and one count of destruction of or injury to public 

jail. The trial court placed Hosseini on supervised probation for a total of 
STATE v. HOSSEINI

Decision of the Court

3

eight years. Under the conditions of his supervised probation, Hosseini was 

prohibited from possessing firearms and alcohol and was required to grant 

his probation officer access to his home. A few months later, the State 

petitioned to revoke Hosseini’s probation, alleging that he had violated the 

conditions of his probation by possessing firearms and alcohol, and

denying his probation officer access to his home. The trial court held a 

probation violation hearing.

¶4 At the hearing, Hosseini’s probation officer testified that he 

had tried to conduct a probation check at Hosseini’s home, but Hosseini 

refused to grant him access. A few days later, the police received several 

reports of firearm discharges at Hosseini’s home. The officers detained 

Hosseini, and the Probation Department conducted a probationary search 

at his home. During the search, the officers found more than 25 firearms, 

ammunition, and alcohol throughout the home. Hosseini testified that he 

was aware that under the conditions of his probation he was not to possess 

firearms or alcohol and grant access to the probation officer to enter his 

home whenever requested.

¶5 The trial court found that Hosseini had violated the term of 

his probation and revoked probation. It sentenced Hosseini to a term of 3 

years’ imprisonment for one count of criminal damage and to a concurrent 

term of 2 years’ imprisonment for one count of destruction of a public jail.

He was awarded 20 days of presentence incarceration credit. For the 

remaining counts, he was sentenced to a 574-day jail term, with 574 days of 

presentence incarceration credit.

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review Hosseini’s convictions and sentences for 

fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). 

Counsel for Hosseini has advised this court that after a diligent search of 

the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have 

read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for 

reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. The proceedings 

were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, the Arizona Rules of Evidence, and constitutional requirements. 

The sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We decline to 

order briefing and affirm Hosseini’s convictions and sentences.

¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Hosseini of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has 

no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue 
STATE v. HOSSEINI

Decision of the Court

4

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Hosseini shall have

30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro 

per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. 

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.