STATE OF ARIZONA v. VANESSA VAN DALSEM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. VANESSA VAN DALSEM, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0036 Filed August 16, 2019 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20163552001 The Honorable Gus Aragon, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Law Offices of Thomas Jacobs, Tucson By Thomas Jacobs Counsel for Appellant STATE v. VAN DALSEM Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Vanessa Van Dalsem was convicted of one count of custodial interference, a class four felony. The trial court sentenced her to thirty-five days in custody, with that time considered served through presentence incarceration. See A.R.S. § 13712(B). ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has found no non-frivolous claim to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, he has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record,” 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, and he asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Van Dalsem has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining Van Dalsem’s conviction, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1302(A)(1), (4), 13-3601(A)(2). Van Dalsem, who lives in California, intentionally failed to comply with a court order requiring her to return her son to his father, with whom she shares parenting time, because she believed living in Pima County was harmful to their son’s health. ¶4 We note that the sentence imposed by the trial court may have been impermissibly lenient. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(A), (D), 13-901(A), (B). But because the state has not filed a cross-appeal, we are without jurisdiction to consider any such error, as its correction would result in a “detriment to [Van Dalsem] as a result of [her] own appeal.” State v. Dawson, 164 Ariz. 278, 280, 286 (1990). ¶5 In our examination of the record, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue subject to our jurisdiction that warrants further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Van Dalsem’s conviction and sentence. 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.
