State v. Bartels, 1 CA-CR 15-0682

Defendant Ian George Bartels pled guilty/no contest to two counts of Attempt to Commit Sexual Assault (class 3 felonies) and one count of Kidnapping (class 2 felony); sentenced to 3.75 years for kidnapping and lifetime probation on the two sexual-assault counts (probation consecutive to prison term).
After completing his prison term, Bartels had two earlier probation violations that resulted in reinstatement of probation.
A third petition to revoke probation was filed alleging violations of Condition 21A (failure to obtain permission for schedule changes / being absent from residence) and Condition 21D (unauthorized contact with K. Yates and her minor children).
At the contested violation hearing, the probation officer testified about observed absences and the officer related Defendant’s admissions of unauthorized contacts with Ms. Yates and her children.
The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant violated probation, revoked probation as to the two sexual-assault counts, and imposed consecutive 2.5-year prison sentences (with credit for time served).
Defendant timely appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders/Leon brief finding no arguable issues, Defendant did not file a supplemental brief, and the Court conducted a full-record review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved probation violations by a preponderance of the evidence	The State argued the probation officer’s testimony and Defendant’s admissions showed failures to follow the intensive-probation schedule (21A) and unauthorized contact with Ms. Yates and minors (21D)	Bartels contended (via record review) that revocation was unsupported / sought reversal of revocation	Court held evidence was substantial and nonarbitrary; probation revocation affirmed
Whether proceedings complied with procedural protections	State: proceedings followed Arizona Rules, Defendant had counsel and opportunity to speak; counsel filed Anders/Leon brief	Defendant did not present additional procedural complaints on appeal	Court held proceedings complied with rules, Defendant represented at all critical stages, sentence legal; no reversible error

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirement for counsel to brief any arguable issues when asserting appeal is frivolous)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (Ariz. 1969) (state-law companion to Anders for appellate counsel duties)
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000) (appellate court’s obligation to review entire record for reversible error)
State v. Thomas, 196 Ariz. 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000) (standard that revocation findings will be upheld unless arbitrary or unsupported)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (Ariz. 1984) (counsel’s obligations after concluding appeal are limited to informing client of status and options)