Court Opinion

ID: 9554273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 16:04:16.299394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:12.458576
License: Public Domain

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                     SARAH ANNE KNAPP, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 23-0058
                               FILED 8-08-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. V1300CR202280222
                The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant
                             STATE v. KNAPP
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1             Sarah Anne Knapp appeals her conviction of criminal
trespass and the resulting sentence. Knapp’s counsel filed a brief per Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969),
certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable
question of law that was not frivolous. Knapp was allowed to file a
supplemental brief, but she did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search
the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v.
Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we
affirm Knapp’s conviction and sentence.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2           In December 2021, Knapp was living out of her car. When her
car broke down one day in Sedona, she went to a local inn. Knapp found an
unlocked door, entered the unoccupied room, and fell asleep on the bed.
She was eventually awakened by the room’s renters, who screamed when
they returned to the room and found her there. Knapp left in a panic
without explaining her presence to the renters or the inn manager. Police
found Knapp in her car near the inn and issued her a citation.

¶3           A grand jury indicted Knapp on one count of first-degree
criminal trespass, a Class 6 felony, and two counts of misdemeanor
disorderly conduct. The misdemeanor counts were later dismissed. The
jury found Knapp guilty of criminal trespass, and the court sentenced
Knapp to a mitigated term of 0.33 years’ imprisonment with 36 days of
presentence incarceration credit.

¶4            Knapp appealed.

                               DISCUSSION

¶5           We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find
none.

                                       2
                            STATE v. KNAPP
                           Decision of the Court

¶6            Knapp was present and represented by counsel at all stages
of the proceedings against her. The record reflects the superior court
afforded Knapp all her constitutional and statutory rights and conducted
the proceedings following the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
court held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial
and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Knapp’s
sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given
for presentence incarceration.1

                              CONCLUSION

¶7            Knapp’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. After the filing
of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Knapp’s
representation in this appeal will end after informing Knapp of the outcome
of this appeal and her future options unless counsel’s review reveals an
issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition
for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

                         AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                         FILED:    JT

1      Any alleged error in Knapp’s sentence would be moot because
Knapp has presumably completed her sentence. See State v. Peters, 110 Ariz.
316, 317 (1974) (issue relating to legality of sentence rendered moot by
passage of time).

                                        3