Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0490
07-23-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. HAZEM KHNALAF MOHAMAD, Appellant.
Law Offices of Cornelia Wallis Honchar, P.C., Tucson By Cornelia Wallis Honchar Counsel for Appellant
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20113726001
The Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Law Offices of Cornelia Wallis Honchar, P.C., Tucson
By Cornelia Wallis Honchar
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Olson concurred. KELLY, Presiding Judge:
The Hon. Robert Carter Olson, a retired judge of the Arizona Superior Court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court.
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Hazem Mohamad was convicted of stalking a person in such a manner that a reasonable person would have feared for her safety. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Mohamad on probation for two years. 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), avowing that she has reviewed the record and has found "[n]o arguable question of law" and requesting that this court search the record for fundamental error. Mohamad has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, see State v. Urquidez, 213 Ariz. 50, ¶ 2, 138 P.3d 1177, 1178 (App. 2006), established that over a period of time, Mohamad followed and approached the victim, made derogatory comments to her, and engaged in other conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear for her safety or that of immediate family members and did, in fact, cause the victim to experience such fear. See A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(1).
¶3 We have reviewed the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (stating Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Our review includes the portions of the record related to sentencing, which establish sentencing was conducted in a lawful manner and resulted in the imposition of a lawful term of probation.
¶4 The conviction and the probationary term are affirmed.