STATE v. BOWMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CHRISTOPHER EVERETTE BOWMAN, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 23-0235 FILED 4-30-2024 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2021-128437-001 The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler By Adam Susser Counsel for Appellant STATE v. BOWMAN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Christopher Everette Bowman, has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law and asks the court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Bowman was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se but has not done so. This court has reviewed the record and has found no reversible error. Thus, Bowman’s convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Bowman was charged with two offenses allegedly committed in July 2021 in Gilbert, Arizona. A jury later found Bowman guilty of aggravated assault, a Class 3 dangerous felony (Count 1) and criminal damage, a Class 1 misdemeanor (Count 2). ¶3 At a June 2023 sentencing, the court considered information and argument presented, including Bowman’s criminal history and a presentence investigation report. Bowman was sentenced to the minimum prison term of 5 years for Count 1, and a concurrent term of 30 days for Count 2, with credit for time served. The court properly awarded Bowman 39 days of presentence incarceration credit and imposed $1,767.99 in restitution and other assessments. This court has jurisdiction over Bowman’s timely appeal under Arizona Revised Statute §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1). DISCUSSION ¶4 The record shows that Bowman was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The sentences imposed were within statutory limits. And in all other respects, from the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2 STATE v. BOWMAN Decision of the Court CONCLUSION ¶5 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has searched the record provided for reversable error and has found none. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Accordingly, Bowman’s convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed. ¶6 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to inform Bowman of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Bowman has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
