State v. Nast
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) RUSSELL ROBERT NAST, JR., ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/03/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 11-0610 Department D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-168284-001DT Stephen P. Lynch, Commissioner AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 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). Counsel for Russell Robert Nast, Jr. (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting Anders review of the record. this court conduct an Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 Defendant, an adult over the age of eighteen, was charged with aggravated assault on a minor, a class 6 felony after he was accused of repeatedly rubbing victim s leg above her knee while driving the victim and her friend to Walmart. Victim was thirteen at the time and had stayed the night at her friend s house, where defendant resided. The rubbing scared victim and she called her parents immediately after getting into the Walmart. Victim s twelve-year old friend witnessed the rubbing and during the incident received texts from victim about how scared she was. Victim testified that the prior evening defendant made her uncomfortable by talking about sex. When victim s parents arrived at Walmart, victim was crying; victim s mother made an immediate report to a police officer located in the parking lot. ¶3 Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial in order to have the charge dropped to a class one misdemeanor. Defendant testified at trial that the truck he had taken the girls to Walmart in had a 2 small bench seat and he may have touched victim s knee while shifting gears. suspended sentence probation. Defendant with one convicted year of and he received intensive a supervised He was sentenced to forty-eight days in jail with credit for time served. ¶3 was Defendant timely appealed. We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 584-85, 684 P.2d Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. ¶4 We affirm the conviction and sentence. /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ __________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
