State v. Zamanzadeh

── State v. Zamanzadeh ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. ALI-MOHAMMAD ZAMANZADEH, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 25-0071 FILED 04-24-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2022-001706-001 The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Jana Zinman Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Laila Ikram Counsel for Appellant  STATE v. ZAMANZADEH Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. P A T O N, Judge: ¶1 Ali-Mohammad Zamanzadeh (“Zamanzadeh”) appeals the superior court’s order requiring him to register as a sex offender. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In January 2023, a jury convicted Zamanzadeh of sexual abuse for touching a female ultrasound technologist’s breast in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section 13-1404. Zamanzadeh denied any wrongdoing during his trial testimony. ¶3 At his February 2023 sentencing hearing, the superior court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on supervised probation for a ten-year term and imposed sex offender terms. The Adult Probation Department (“APD”) recommended the court require Zamanzadeh to register as a sex offender but that the registration requirement be deferred for one year so they could see how he engaged with treatment—specifically, sex offender education and therapy. The superior court agreed to defer the matter and directed APD to submit an updated recommendation in one year. ¶4 Zamanzadeh appealed his conviction and probation imposition after the sentencing hearing, and we affirmed. See State v. Zamanzadeh, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0080, 2024 WL 380014, at *1, ¶ 1 (Ariz. App. Feb. 1, 2024) (mem. decision), (review denied Aug. 19, 2024). ¶5 Zamanzadeh submitted to clinical assessments by Mountain Valley Counseling (“Mountain Valley”). In their assessment, Mountain Valley found Zamanzadeh was “evasive” and “highly defensive.” Mountain Valley also noted that Zamanzadeh’s “history of viewing pornography, including his viewing of images of sexual violence,” should be further evaluated during treatment. But the assessment acknowledged that Zamanzadeh “has skills which allow him to self-regulate his sexual behavior effectively.” Highlighting his continued assertions that he did 2  STATE v. ZAMANZADEH Decision of the Court nothing wrong, Mountain Valley emphasized that successful treatment would include Zamanzadeh “increasing his offense responsibility.” After the assessment, Zamanzadeh began treatment by going to group therapy. But Zamanzadeh was removed from group therapy due to his disruption of other group members’ treatment and his repeated denials of his offense. ¶6 APD ultimately recommended that the court order Zamanzadeh to register as a sex offender. Citing Mountain Valley’s assessment, APD reasoned that it was “unclear if Mr. Zamanzadeh will be successful in sex offender treatment.” Due to this uncertainty and Zamanzadeh’s removal from treatment, APD explained that community safety is better preserved b