NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE 

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, 

v.

LARZ GENE ZOTIGH, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0778 

 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2012-111303-001 

The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Charles R. Krull 

Counsel for Appellant 
STATE v. ZOTIGH 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined. 

S W A N N, Judge: 

¶1 Defendant Larz Gene Zotigh appeals the trial court’s order 

reinstating him on probation based upon a finding that he violated a 

condition of his probation. This case comes to us as an appeal under 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 

P.2d 878 (1969). Defendant’s appellate counsel has searched the record on 

appeal and found no arguable, nonfrivolous question of law, and asks us 

to review the record for reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Smith v. 

Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 

1999). Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in 

propria persona but did not do so. 

¶2 We have searched the record for reversible error and find 

none. Accordingly, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶3 Defendant pled guilty to possession or use of marijuana, a 

class 6 undesignated felony offense, and the court placed him on 

probation for two years beginning on the date of his release from prison 

for two separate offenses. One of Defendant’s probation conditions 

required him to report to the probation department within 72 hours of 

discharge from prison. Defendant placed his fingerprint on the order of 

probation and signed the Uniform Conditions of Probation, both of which 

included the 72-hour reporting requirement and the latter of which 

included the probation department’s address and phone number. 

Defendant’s signed conditions further stated: “I acknowledge receipt of 

the conditions of probation and any attachments added. I understand that 

by not abiding by the conditions of probation my probation could be 

revoked and the Court may sentence me in accordance with the law.” 

¶4 Defendant was released from prison on May 11, 2013, and 

placed on parole until mid-July. In June and July, the probation 

department attempted to contact him through mail and a visit to his lastknown address. After attempts to locate Defendant proved unsuccessful, 
STATE v. ZOTIGH 

Decision of the Court 

3 

the probation department petitioned to revoke his probation in part 

because he had failed to comply with the 72-hour reporting requirement. 

Defendant was eventually arrested in September and denied the alleged 

probation violation. 

¶5 At the witness violation hearing, Defendant testified that he 

did not think he had to report to the probation department upon his 

release from prison because he was reporting to a parole officer at that 

time and the officer told Defendant that he had no further obligations 

once he finished parole. Defendant acknowledged, however, that it was 

his responsibility to determine whether he was on probation regardless of 

what the parole officer may have told him. The court stated that it 

believed Defendant had made an honest mistake but that it remained 

Defendant’s responsibility to report for probation. 

¶6 The court ultimately found that Defendant had violated the 

72-hour reporting requirement and reinstated him on probation for two 

years, ordering the term of probation to run retroactively from the date of 

Defendant’s original probation. Defendant timely appeals. 

DISCUSSION

¶7 The state must prove a probation violation by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.8(b)(3). We will 

uphold a trial court’s finding that a probationer has violated probation 

unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by the evidence. State v. 

Vaughn, 217 Ariz. 518, 521, ¶ 14, 176 P.3d 716, 719 (App. 2008). Here, the 

state presented properly admissible and sufficient evidence to support the 

court’s reinstatement of probation. Although Defendant may have been 

confused about his probation requirements, he was personally responsible 

for complying with them and failed to do so. 

¶8 The record shows that Defendant was present and 

represented at all critical stages and was given an opportunity to speak at 

disposition. The court stated on the record the evidence and materials it 

considered and the factors it found in reinstating him on probation. The 

court acted within its discretion in reinstating Defendant on probation for 

two years based on his guilty plea to a class 6 undesignated felony 

offense. See A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(4). 

¶9 The court erred, however, by proceeding with disposition 

immediately after the witness violation hearing. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

27.8(c)(1) (“A disposition hearing shall be held no less than 7 nor more than 

20 days after a determination that a probationer has violated a condition 
STATE v. ZOTIGH 

Decision of the Court 

4 

or regulation of probation.” (emphasis added)). A probationer may waive 

a disposition hearing and “[i]f the waiver is accepted, the court may 

proceed forthwith to dispose of the proceeding under Rule 27.8(c).” Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 27.8(d). Although neither party objected to the court’s 

initiative to immediately proceed with disposition, the record does not 

indicate that Defendant explicitly waived his right to a disposition hearing 

nor that the court accepted such a waiver. Nevertheless, “Rule 27 time 

limits are not jurisdictional and no sanctions are provided. Violations 

must be viewed from a due process standpoint, and a revocation reversed 

only if prejudice is demonstrated.” State v. Lee, 27 Ariz. App. 294, 295, 554 

P.2d 890, 891 (1976). In this case, Defendant was not prejudiced by the 

premature disposition because the court reinstated him on probation for 

the same length of time and commencing on the same date as his original 

two-year probation. See State v. Huante, 111 Ariz. 236, 237, 527 P.2d 281, 

282 (1974) (“[T]he time limits [of Rule 27] are imposed to give the 

probationer time to prepare his defense and to protect him from ‘lengthy 

unwarranted incarceration.’”). 

CONCLUSION 

¶10 We have reviewed the record for reversible error and find 

none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We therefore affirm the 

reinstatement of Defendant’s probation. 

¶11 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to this appeal have 

come to an end. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 

156-57 (1984). Unless, upon review, counsel discovers an issue 

appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel 

must only inform Defendant of the status of this appeal and Defendant’s 

future options. Id. Defendant has 30 days from the date of this decision to 

file a petition for review in propria persona. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(a). 

Upon the court’s own motion, Defendant has 30 days from the date of this 

decision in which to file a motion for reconsideration.