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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0075 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County 

No. P1300CR14337 

The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee 

David Goldberg Attorney at Law, Ft. Collins, CO 

By David Goldberg 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. NASH 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined. 

P O R T L E Y, Judge: 

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant 

Albert Edward Nash, Jr., has advised us that he has been unable to discover 

any arguable questions of law after searching the entire record, and has 

filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Nash 

did not take the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. 

FACTS1

¶2 Nash pled guilty to two counts of attempted child molestation 

in 1990, and was sentenced to prison for one count, and given a suspended 

sentence of twenty years’ probation for the second count. State v. Nash, 1 

CA-CR 15-0162, 2015 WL 6499499, at *1, ¶ 2 (Ariz. App. Oct. 27, 2015) (mem. 

decision). In 2009, while on probation, Nash pled guilty to furnishing 

harmful items to minors, and was sentenced to six years in prison. Id. at 

¶ 2. Because the offense was a violation of the conditions of his probation, 

the court ordered that probation be reinstated for his lifetime upon his 

release from prison for the 2009 offense. Id. 

¶3 In October 2014, Nash’s probation officer filed a petition to 

revoke Nash’s probation, alleging that Nash was in possession of sexually 

explicit material, and had been near a park or school primarily used by 

children on two occasions. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. After a contested hearing, the 

superior court revoked Nash’s probation, sentenced him to six years in 

prison, and Nash appealed. Id. at *1-3, ¶¶ 5-13. 

 

1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. 

Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89, 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997). 
STATE v. NASH 

Decision of the Court 

3

¶4 On appeal, we found there was insufficient evidence to 

support the allegation that Nash had been near a park primarily used by 

minors, id. at *8, ¶ 37, and remanded the case because we could not 

determine “whether the superior court would have still revoked probation 

and sentenced Nash to six years’ imprisonment based only on the two 

violations that remaine[d].” Id. at *10, ¶ 46. 

¶5 On remand, and after a disposition hearing, the superior court 

took into consideration the mitigating evidence previously filed, and the 

fact that only two of the violations were upheld on appeal, and changed 

Nash’s sentence. The court revoked Nash’s probation, sentenced him to a 

term of five years in prison, and gave him 608 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. Nash appeals, and 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 -4033(A)(1).2

DISCUSSION 

¶6 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

searched the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon, 104 

Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in 

compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as 

presented, reveals that Nash was represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 

¶7 After this decision is filed, counsel’s obligation to represent 

Nash in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Nash of the 

status of the appeal and Nash’s future options, unless counsel identifies an 

issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition 

for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 

(1984). Nash may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition 

for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

 

2 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes absent changes 

material to this decision. 
STATE v. NASH 

Decision of the Court 

4

CONCLUSION 

¶8 Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.