STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHRISTOPHER LAMAR CLEVELAND

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER CLEVELAND, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0157 Filed February 11, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pinal County No. S1100CR201202592 The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt, PLLC, Tucson By Harriette P. Levitt Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CLEVELAND Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Staring concurred. H O W A R D, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Christopher Cleveland was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender. The trial court sentenced him to a nine-year prison term. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record” and asks this court to search the record for error. Cleveland has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports it here. Cleveland, who had been previously convicted of failing to register as a sex offender, moved to Pinal County without registering as a sex offender and lived with his girlfriend for approximately two months before his arrest in September 2011. A.R.S. §§ 133821(A)(19), 13-3822(A), 13-3824(A). And his sentence was within the statutory range and properly imposed. A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J); 13-3824(A). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Cleveland’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 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.