State V Lopez
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
v.
SARAH LOPEZ, Appellant.
No. 1 CA-CR 24-0551
FILED 07-22-2025
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202301044
The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee
Janelle A. McEachern, Attorney at Law, Chandler
By Janelle A. McEachern
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. LOPEZ
Decision of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Daniel J. Kiley
joined.
W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:
¶1 Sarah Shanesse Lopez appeals her convictions and sentences
for aggravated assault (a class 5 felony), resisting arrest (a class 6 felony),
and failure to show driver’s license or identification (a class 2
misdemeanor). After searching the record and finding no arguable, non-
frivolous question of law, Lopez’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. Lopez
had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
¶2 Sergeant Franklin Luttrell (the “Sergeant”) pulled Lopez over
for a traffic violation in September 2023. Lopez raised her voice and argued
with the Sergeant. The Sergeant asked Lopez more than once for her license
and registration. Lopez refused to provide either form of identification.
The Sergeant asked Lopez to exit the vehicle and warned she would be
arrested if she did not comply. Lopez did not exit the vehicle. After 12
minutes, the Sergeant radioed for help. Deputy Nathan Rosenblum (the
“Deputy”) arrived at the scene, and Lopez argued with both officers. The
Deputy was able to handcuff Lopez’s right arm, but she would not let him
handcuff her left arm. Lopez later exited the vehicle and kicked the
Sergeant in his belt area.
¶3 Lopez was indicted on four counts—counts one and two for
aggravated assault, count three for resisting arrest and count four for failure
to show driver’s license or identification. Count two was dismissed with
prejudice before jury selection. Defense counsel moved for a directed
1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.”
State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. Valencia,
186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)).
2
STATE v. LOPEZ
Decision of the Court
verdict of acquittal. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20. Defense counsel also moved
for a new trial under Rule 24.1. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.1. Both motions
were denied.
¶4 The jury convicted Lopez of aggravated assault and resisting
arrest. Lopez was also found guilty of failure to show her driver’s license
or other identification. Lopez was sentenced as a non-dangerous, non-
repetitive offender to serve consecutive sentences of six months for
aggravated assault and four months for resisting arrest. Lopez timely
appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-
4031 and -4033(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶5 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find
none.
¶6 Lopez was present and represented by counsel at all stages of
the proceedings against her except a pretrial conference where the court
waived her presence. The record shows the superior court afforded Lopez
all her constitutional and statutory rights, and the proceedings were
conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings. The evidence presented
at trial (summarized above) was sufficient to support the verdicts. And
Lopez’s sentences were within the range prescribed by law. See A.R.S.
§§ 13-702, -707.
¶7 We note that Lopez spent only one day in jail before
sentencing, but the court credited her with two days’ presentence
incarceration. We lack jurisdiction to correct Lopez’s presentence
incarceration, however, because the State did not cross-appeal. See State v.
Garcia, 256 Ariz. 488, 494, ¶ 28 (App. 2023) (vacated in part on other
grounds).
CONCLUSION
¶8 Lopez’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. Counsel’s
obligations in this appeal will end once Lopez is informed of the outcome
and her future options, unless counsel finds an issue appropriate for
submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State
3
STATE v. LOPEZ
Decision of the Court
v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On the court’s own motion, Lopez
has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.
MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR
4