State v. Lebian, 1 CA-CR 20-0542

December 2018: Officer Shook responded to a 911 report of a man blocking traffic and attempting to open car doors; he found Lebian walking in the roadway and ordered him out of the road.
Lebian acknowledged the order but fled after Shook attempted arrest; a physical struggle ensued during which Lebian swung at Shook and grappled with officers; Officer Kline testified Lebian twisted and clawed at his fingers.
State charged Lebian with two counts of aggravated assault and resisting arrest; Lebian moved for new appointed counsel (denied) and to exclude hearsay from the 911 call (granted in part).
At trial multiple officers testified for the State; Lebian was the sole defense witness; the jury was initially not given a limiting instruction about the 911 call but the court later recalled the jury and gave one.
Jury convicted on all counts; court imposed mitigated concurrent terms (nine months for each aggravated assault, four months for resisting arrest) with 51 days’ credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of new counsel / right to self-representation	Court properly denied because defendant did not make an unequivocal request to self-represent	Lebian says he asked to represent himself and claimed conflict/overloaded public defender	No error — record contains no unequivocal self-representation request; denial proper
Sufficiency and inconsistent officer testimony	State: multiple officers corroborated struggle and assaults; evidence sufficient	Lebian argues officers’ statements were inconsistent, non‑corroborating, and factually inaccurate	No error — appellate court will not reweigh credibility; evidence viewed favorably to sustain convictions
Admissibility / limiting instruction for 911 call	911 call admissible for non‑hearsay purpose (why officer responded); State complied with court order	Lebian contends the 911 call tainted the jury and omission of limiting instruction prejudiced him	No error — court precluded 911 call as hearsay for truth, allowed only to explain response, and cured omission by later giving limiting instruction; presumed followed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes appellate counsel's duties when claiming the appeal is frivolous)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (appellate review following Anders procedure)
State v. Henry, 189 Ariz. 542 (defendant must make an unequivocal request to invoke right to self-representation)
State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289 (standard for viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 (presumption that juries follow curative instructions)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (post‑Anders counsel obligations to client)