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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

BOUDEWYN RONALD HANSS, 

Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0049 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015201801860

The Honorable Billy K. Sipe Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate’s Office, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-05-2021

AMENDED PER ORDER FILED 10-05-2021
STATE v. HANSS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani 

joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 

(1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300 (1969). Counsel for defendant 

Boudewyn Ronald Hanss has advised the court that, after searching the 

entire record, he has found no arguable question of law and asks this court 

to conduct an Andersreview of the record. Hanss was given the opportunity 

to file a supplemental brief pro se, but has not done so. This court has 

reviewed the record and has found no reversible error. Accordingly, Hanss’ 

conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Early one morning in June 2013, in Mohave County, an 

Arizona Department of Public Safety Trooper saw Hanss riding a 

motorcycle without a required windshield or protective eyewear. When the 

Trooper tried to stop Hanss, he did not quickly comply and used improper 

hand signals. When Hanss did pull over, the Trooper saw that he was slow 

and lethargic; Hanss then performed “poorly” on several field sobriety 

tests. The Trooper also learned that Hanss was driving on a suspended 

driver’s license. The Trooper arrested Hanss and later, after he agreed, drew 

blood for analysis. Subsequent analysis revealed methamphetamine in his

blood.

¶3 Hanss was arraigned in 2018. After several continuances, 

hearings, changes of counsel and COVID-19-related delays, a three-day, inperson jury trial was held in December 2020. The jury found Hanss guilty 

of aggravated driving while a drug is in the defendant’s body, a Class 4 

felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 28-1383(A)(1), 

1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” 

State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-589 (1997) (citation omitted). 
STATE v. HANSS

Decision of the Court

3

28-1381(A)(3), 13-701, 13-703 and 13-801 (2021).2 Given his prior criminal

history, Hanss was sentenced as a category three repetitive offender to an

eight-year mitigated prison term in February 2021, as well as ordered to pay

statutory fines. Hanss received 546 days in presentence credit.

¶4 Hanss timely appeals his conviction and sentence. This court 

has jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1), §§ 13-

4031 and -4033(A)(1)(2021).

DISCUSSION

¶5 The court has reviewed and considered defense counsel’s 

brief and has searched the entire record for reversible error. See State v. 

Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (providing guidelines for briefs 

when counsel has determined no arguable issues to appeal). Searching the 

record and briefing reveals no reversible error. The record shows that 

Hanss was represented by counsel at all critical stages. From the record, all 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. The sentence imposed was within the statutory range. 

Neither counsel nor Hanss raised any issues on appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶6 Accordingly, Hanss’ conviction is affirmed.

¶7 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Hanss of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense 

counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies 

an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by 

petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Hanss 

shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, 

with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.