STATE v. FAIZ-FAHMY

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. JAMIE RUTH FAIZ-FAHMY, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 21-0544 FILED 8-2-2022 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300CR202000090 The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Nicole Countryman Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Nicole Countryman Counsel for Appellant MEMORANDUM DECISION Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. G A S S, Vice Chief Judge: STATE v. FAIZ-FAHMY Decision of the Court ¶1 Jamie Ruth Faiz-Fahmy appeals her conviction and probation grant under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Faiz-Fahmy’s counsel searched the record and identified no arguable, non-frivolous question of law. Counsel asks this court to review the record for fundamental error. This court gave Faiz-Fahmy an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. She has not done so. Because we find no error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 This court views the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolves all reasonable inferences against Faiz-Fahmy. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). ¶3 In 2019, the State charged Faiz-Fahmy with four felonies. In December 2019, the superior court held a status conference. Faiz-Fahmy was present. The superior court set a status conference for January 13, 2020, and told Faiz-Fahmy she had to appear at that January status conference. Faiz-Fahmy responded “okay” but failed to appear. ¶4 A grand jury indicted Faiz-Fahmy for failure to appear in the first degree, a class 5 felony. See A.R.S. § 13-2057.A. Following a trial, a jury convicted Faiz-Fahmy of the charged offense. The superior court suspended the imposition of a sentence and placed Faiz-Fahmy on two years of supervised probation. ¶5 Faiz-Fahmy timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 134031 and 13-4033.A.1. ANALYSIS ¶6 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for fundamental, reversible error and finds none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). ¶7 All the superior court’s proceedings complied with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record shows Faiz-Fahmy was present for, and represented by counsel at, all critical stages of the proceedings. See State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977); State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990). Based on the parties’ stipulation, the superior court empaneled a jury of eight jurors and one alternate. See A.R.S. § 21-102.B. The record shows no evidence of jury misconduct. The superior court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offense, the 2 STATE v. FAIZ-FAHMY Decision of the Court State’s burden of proof, and Faiz-Fahmy’s presumed innocence. Additionally, the superior court gave Faiz-Fahmy an opportunity to speak at sentencing, though counsel advised her not to do so. And the superior court acted within its statutory authority when it suspended Faiz-Fahmy’s sentence and imposed two-years’ probation. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10(b)(1); A.R.S. §§ 13-2507.A, -702.D, -902.A.4. CONCLUSION ¶8 We affirm Faiz-Fahmy’s conviction and probation grant. ¶9 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Faiz-Fahmy’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Faiz-Fahmy of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to our supreme court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). ¶10 Faiz-Fahmy has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. This court, on its own motion, also grants FaizFahmy thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 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.