STATE OF ARIZONA v. LOUIE EDWARD LOWERY, JR.
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 TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LOUIE EDWARD LOWERY JR., Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED BY CLERK OCT 18 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CR 2012-0064 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY Cause No. CR201100522 Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge AFFIRMED Joel Larson, Cochise County Legal Defender By Richard M. Swartz Bisbee Attorneys for Appellant H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 Appellant Louie Lowery Jr. was convicted after a jury trial of misdemeanor domestic violence assault. The trial court placed him on supervised probation for a period of two years and, after a hearing, ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $3,831.83. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing he has reviewed the record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has also provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Lowery has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in February 2011, Lowery kicked his ex-wife on the chin and fractured her tooth. We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements necessary for Lowery s conviction, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1203(A)(1), 13-3601(A)(1), and the probation imposed is an authorized disposition, see A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(5). ¶4 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Lowery s conviction and disposition. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Judge 2
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.
