State v. McBride
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. JENNIFER ANNETTE MCBRIDE, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/12/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0954 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-134390-001 DT The Honorable Julie P. Newell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, 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 Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 738 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Jennifer Annette McBride 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 us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 Defendant was yelling outside an apartment complex on the evening of May 21, 2009. member of Block confrontation. ¶3 approached her and there was a In the meantime, the police had been called. After increasingly Watch, The apartment complex s manager, a the police combative arrived, during Defendant questioning. herself face-to-face with one of the officers. She became positioned She refused to comply with a request to sit down on the curb and the officers decided to restrain her. the chest, ripping his She resisted and kicked one officer in shirt pocket. She was eventually handcuffed but remained uncooperative. ¶4 Defendant was charged resisting arrest, and assault. with aggravated assault, After trial, the jury convicted her of aggravated assault and resisting arrest, but acquitted 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 her of simple assault. She was placed on probation for eighteen months. ¶5 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶6 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 The record, as presented, reveals that represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶7 After this to represent obligation decision has Defendant been in filed, this appeal counsel s has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal review and reveals Defendant s an issue future options, appropriate for unless submission Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d counsel s 154, to the See State v. 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or 3 petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ ___________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 4
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.
