STATE OF ARIZONA v. ANNA NOEL CHRISTIANSEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANNA NOEL CHRISTIANSEN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0453 Filed May 7, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20141206001 The Honorable Richard D. Nichols, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CHRISTIANSEN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Appellant Anna Christiansen was charged with two counts of aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, she was convicted of two counts of the lesser-included offense of disorderly conduct, dangerous offenses. The trial court sentenced her to concurrent, partially mitigated prison terms of 1.75 years with fortyseven days of presentence incarceration credit. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no meritorious issue to raise on appeal and asking that we search the record for “error.” 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.” Christiansen has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewing the evidence 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 March 2014, the assistant general manager of a Tucson hotel had deactivated the key to the room registered to Christiansen and informed her she would be charged a $250 fine because hotel staff had reported “a weird odor of smoke” coming from her room in violation of the hotel’s no-smoking policy. Christiansen became “kind of hostile,” used “vulgar language,” and waved a pink and silver semiautomatic “hand pistol” 1 at the assistant manager and 1 Christiansen denied displaying a weapon and none was found. 2 STATE v. CHRISTIANSEN Decision of the Court another hotel employee while saying, “[Y]ou don’t know who you’re messing with, I can’t wait to see you outside of work.” We conclude substantial evidence supported finding the elements necessary for Christiansen’s convictions, see A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(6), and the sentences are lawful and were imposed in a lawful manner, see A.R.S. § 13-704(A). ¶3 Our examination of the record pursuant to Anders has revealed no reversible error or arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Christiansen’s convictions and sentences. 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.
