Background
After an evening at a hookah bar in September 2022, Rebecca Ramadan Younis rode in the front passenger seat of a car driven by Akuepir Peter. Four others, including N.T. and T.M., sat in the back. According to N.T., Peter drove erratically while waving a handgun, prompting an argument that ended when Peter pulled over. Younis challenged N.T. to fight, and the two exchanged blows outside the car.
N.T. testified that after the fight ended, she heard a gunshot and saw Younis holding Peter’s gun. At Peter’s urging, Younis fired again, striking N.T. with a bullet that passed through one thigh and lodged in the other. Younis testified to a substantially different account, denying that she saw a gun, heard gunshots, or shot N.T.
A jury found Younis guilty of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon based on the two shots. The superior court had directed a verdict for Younis on a separate disorderly-conduct charge because the State failed to prove that T.M.’s peace was disturbed. The court sentenced Younis to concurrent minimum terms of five years, with 215 days of presentence-incarceration credit. Her appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that no arguable legal issue existed, and Younis did not submit a supplemental brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record for fundamental and reversible error and found none. It therefore affirmed Younis’s aggravated-assault convictions and sentences.
The court determined that Younis was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, the trial complied with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the jury was properly composed and instructed. It also concluded that the trial evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts and that the concurrent five-year sentences fell within the statutory guidelines, with the correct presentence-incarceration credit.
Key Takeaways
- In an Anders appeal, the appellate court independently reviews the record for reversible error when counsel identifies no arguable legal issue.
- N.T.’s testimony that Younis fired two shots, one of which struck her, provided sufficient evidence to sustain the two aggravated-assault convictions.
- The court found no fundamental error in the proceedings and upheld the concurrent minimum five-year sentences.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the scope of appellate review under Anders: even without a specific claim of error, the court examines the entire record for fundamental or reversible error before affirming. It also confirms that conflicts between the victim’s account and the defendant’s testimony did not undermine the verdicts where the evidence was legally sufficient for the jury to convict.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as that rule permits.