Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department D
Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause Nos. CR2008-140067-001, CR2009-007155-001, The Honorable Sheila A. Madden, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office By Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant
JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge
¶1 Linda Becenti appeals from her reinstatement of probation pursuant to a guilty plea on two consolidated felony counts. Becenti's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Becenti was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 "We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions." State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001).
¶3 In February 2009, Becenti was charged with one count of marijuana possession, a class six felony, and one count of trafficking in the identity of another, a class two felony. On November 23, 2009, she pleaded guilty to both the drug-related felony and a reduced charge of possession of a forgery device. Becenti was placed on two years of supervised probation beginning on December 10, 2009.
¶4 On March 30, 2010, the State filed a petition to revoke Becenti's probation. At a disposition hearing on February 18, 2011, she admitted to violating Term 3, which required her to report as directed to her assigned probation officer. As a result, the court revised the terms of probation, reinstating it for two years with a new expiration date of February 18, 2013.
¶5 On May 21, 2012, the State filed a second petition to revoke probation, this time claiming that Becenti violated multiple terms of probations on both counts. Specifically, the State alleged that Becenti failed to report to her supervising officer (Term 6), did not provide officers with accurate information regarding her place of residence (Term 7), did not participate in the treatment at the facility assigned by her supervising officer (Term 11), and did not pay the fines imposed by the court (Term 15). Further, the State alleged that Becenti failed to complete the twenty-four hours of community restitution required for the drug-related offense (Term 17).
¶6 The court held a witness violation hearing regarding the petition to revoke probation on July 23, 2012. Becenti's probation officer ("Officer") testified that Becenti had failed to report as required on at least three occasions. Becenti also failed to report even after Officer contacted her and attempted to reschedule the required time and date.
¶7 Officer further testified that Becenti did not provide her with a valid residential address. Despite being asked multiple times, Becenti repeatedly failed to disclose her current home address. Ultimately, she gave Officer what turned out to be a false address.
¶8 The terms of probation also required Becenti to seek treatment at the facility designated by her probation officer. She was directed by Officer to report to Casa de Amigas, a residential facility for drug abuse rehabilitation. However, Becenti was never admitted into Casa de Amigas. She claimed that the facility would not take her in because of an inability to pay. However, Officer testified that according ...