Court Opinion

ID: 9399817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 16:06:31.667199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:24.067151
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   LEE MOSTAFA HOSSEINI, Appellant.

                       No. 1 CA-CR 22-0366
                         FILED 6-1-2023
                 AMENDED PER ORDER FILED 6-02-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                       Nos. P1300CR202001231
                          P1300CR202001400
                          V1300CR202180213
                 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

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

The Zickerman Law Office PLLC, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. HOSSEINI
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1              This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Lee
Hosseini has advised this court that he has found no arguable questions of
law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Hosseini
pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal damage, two counts of
aggravated harassment, and one count of destruction of or injury to public
jail. After violating the terms of his probation, he was sentenced to prison
for a total of three years. He was given an opportunity to file a supplemental
brief in propria persona; he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we
affirm Hosseini’s convictions and sentences.

                 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Hosseini. See State
v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). In October 2020, the State
charged Hosseini with aggravated harassment and disorderly conduct,
alleging that he had disturbed and harassed his neighbors while an order
of protection against him was still in place. About a month later, the State
charged Hosseini with one count of aggravated assault, one count of
criminal littering or polluting, two counts of criminal damage, and one
count of criminal trespass in the third degree. The State alleged that
Hosseini had again harassed his neighbors, damaged their property, and
trespassed on their property. It also alleged that Hosseini had littered by
placing cement bags on public property. About five months later, the State
charged Hosseini with criminal damage and destruction of a public jail,
alleging that Hosseini, while in custody, had damaged the jail windows,
walls, and towel racks.

¶3              Hosseini entered into a plea agreement in all three cases and
pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal damage, two counts of
aggravated harassment, and one count of destruction of or injury to public
jail. The trial court placed Hosseini on supervised probation for a total of

                                       2
                           STATE v. HOSSEINI
                           Decision of the Court

eight years. Under the conditions of his supervised probation, Hosseini was
prohibited from possessing firearms and alcohol and was required to grant
his probation officer access to his home. A few months later, the State
petitioned to revoke Hosseini’s probation, alleging that he had violated the
conditions of his probation by possessing firearms and alcohol, and
denying his probation officer access to his home. The trial court held a
probation violation hearing.

¶4            At the hearing, Hosseini’s probation officer testified that he
had tried to conduct a probation check at Hosseini’s home, but Hosseini
refused to grant him access. A few days later, the police received several
reports of firearm discharges at Hosseini’s home. The officers detained
Hosseini, and the Probation Department conducted a probationary search
at his home. During the search, the officers found more than 25 firearms,
ammunition, and alcohol throughout the home. Hosseini testified that he
was aware that under the conditions of his probation he was not to possess
firearms or alcohol and grant access to the probation officer to enter his
home whenever requested.

¶5           The trial court found that Hosseini had violated the term of
his probation and revoked probation. It sentenced Hosseini to a term of 3
years’ imprisonment for one count of criminal damage and to a concurrent
term of 2 years’ imprisonment for one count of destruction of a public jail.
He was awarded 20 days of presentence incarceration credit. For the
remaining counts, he was sentenced to a 574-day jail term, with 574 days of
presentence incarceration credit.

                              DISCUSSION

¶6            We review Hosseini’s convictions and sentences for
fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011).
Counsel for Hosseini has advised this court that after a diligent search of
the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have
read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for
reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. The proceedings
were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the Arizona Rules of Evidence, and constitutional requirements.
The sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We decline to
order briefing and affirm Hosseini’s convictions and sentences.

¶7            Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Hosseini of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has
no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue

                                     3
                            STATE v. HOSSEINI
                            Decision of the Court

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Hosseini shall have
30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro
per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

                               CONCLUSION

¶8            We affirm.

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

                                         4