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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ALBERT ANDERSON,

Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0600 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2019-104052-001

The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Aaron J. Moskowitz

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-12-2021
STATE v. ANDERSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

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

¶1 Albert Jerome Anderson appeals his conviction and sentence 

for misconduct involving weapons. After searching the record and finding 

no arguable, non-frivolous question of law, Anderson’s counsel filed a brief 

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

104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental 

error. Anderson had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did 

not. We affirm Anderson’s conviction and sentence after reviewing the 

record but vacate the portion of the sentencing order requiring him to pay 

for DNA testing.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 A bus driver contacted Phoenix police in January 2019 to 

report that Anderson was “sleeping on the bus [and] refusing to exit.” 

Officers responded, entered the bus and detained Anderson. Officers then 

frisked Anderson and found a loaded .380 semi-automatic handgun in his 

pants. Anderson was arrested.

¶3 Because Anderson was on felony probation, the State charged 

him with misconduct involving weapons. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3101(A)(7)(d); -

3102(A)(4). The State also offered Anderson’s felony probation status as an 

aggravating circumstance under A.R.S. § 13-708(C). Anderson pleaded not 

guilty. 

¶4 After a three-day trial, the jury convicted Anderson of the 

charged offense but found the State did not prove Anderson’s felony 

probation status beyond a reasonable doubt. The superior court sentenced 

Anderson to ten years in prison on the weapons charge and one consecutive 

1.5-year term for violating the terms of his probation after finding six prior 

felony convictions. See A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J); -708(E). The court awarded 

Anderson 257 days’ presentence incarceration credit. 
STATE v. ANDERSON

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Anderson timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-

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

DISCUSSION

¶6 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. Anderson was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court 

afforded Anderson all his constitutional and statutory rights and that 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 sufficient 

to support the jury’s verdict. Anderson’s sentence falls within the range 

prescribed by law, with sufficient credit given for presentence 

incarceration. 

¶7 We correct one sentencing error. See State v. McPherson, 228 

Ariz. 557, 559, ¶ 4 (App. 2012) (“[A]n illegal sentence constitutes 

fundamental, prejudicial error.”). The superior court erroneously ordered 

Anderson to pay for DNA testing under A.R.S. § 13-610. See State v. Reyes, 

232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (holding that A.R.S. § 13-610 cannot 

form the basis to assess a defendant the cost of DNA testing). We thus 

vacate that portion of the court’s sentencing order.

CONCLUSION

¶8 Anderson’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. Counsel’s 

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

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

for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See 

State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, 

Anderson has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed with a pro 

se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.