State v. Almas

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. ATHAR ALMAS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 06-03-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0859 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2008-179796-001 DT The Honorable Janet E. Barton, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix H A L L, Judge ¶1 Athar Almas appeals from her conviction and the brief in sentence imposed. ¶2 Defendant s appellate counsel filed a accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that, after a diligent search of the record, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which she has not done. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, & 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶3 We review for fundamental error, error that goes to the foundation of a case or takes from the defendant a right essential to her defense. See State v. King, 158 Ariz. 419, 424, 763 P.2d 239, 244 (1988). We view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Cropper, 205 Ariz. 181, 182, & 2, 68 P.3d 407, 408 (2003). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶4 On March 17, 2009, defendant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-1204(A)(2) (2010). ¶5 On October 28, 2008, J.S., the victim, was eating breakfast at Tumbleweed, a shelter for the homeless, when he was approached by defendant and asked to charge her cell phone. 2 The victim attached the phone to the charger and went outside to talk with another friend. When defendant returned, she looked for her phone and found it missing. She accused the victim of stealing her phone. ¶6 The victim testified that defendant was furious, and very mad. A friend of defendant, Tiny, also questioned the victim on the whereabouts of defendant s phone. The argument lasted approximately twenty to thirty minutes. ¶7 The victim then walked outside of immediately felt a sharp pain in his back. defendant standing with a knife. the shelter and He turned and saw She repeatedly asked, Where s my phone? Where s my phone? ¶8 The victim testified that defendant then forced him to get onto a bus to go to CASS, another shelter for the homeless. While on the bus, the victim saw defendant place the knife in her backpack. The victim decided to snatch the backpack from defendant and a struggle ensued. the head to keep her bag. had the backpack, he ran Defendant hit the victim on The victim testified that once he to talked to a security guard. the State Capitol Building and Defendant, however, followed the victim into the building, grabbed her backpack, and fled. ¶9 Soon thereafter, S.B. of the Capitol Police Department and J.S. of the Phoenix Fire Department arrived on the scene. 3 S.B. observed the victim without his shirt and saw a laceration 6-inches in length on his back. ¶10 R.G. of the Capitol Police Department observed person matching the victim s description of defendant. walking briskly, watching keeping a visual on us. our activity, and a She was constantly The officer apprehended defendant and the victim positively identified her as his attacker. ¶11 After a three-day guilty as charged. mitigated term of trial, the jury found defendant The trial court sentenced defendant to a five years in prison with 53 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶12 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. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was given an opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Furthermore, based on our review of the record, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant committed the offense for which she was convicted. ¶13 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this defendant s Counsel need do decision, counsel s representation no more than in this inform defendant of the status of the appeal and her future options, 4 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, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. Accordingly, defendant s conviction and sentence are affirmed. _/s/______________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge . /s/ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge . 5

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.