Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0173
02-23-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAMON ANTHONY GARCIA, Appellant.
COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20145076001
The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED
COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Vásquez concurred. ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Ramon Garcia was convicted of robbery and third-degree burglary. After finding that Garcia had multiple historical prior felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent seven-year prison terms.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found "[n]o arguable question of law" to raise on appeal, and asking that we search the record for fundamental error. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has also provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record." Garcia has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. The evidence presented at trial showed that in December 2014, Garcia entered a beauty supply store, stole two hair clippers from behind a counter, and pushed aside a store employee who confronted him as he left the store. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1506, 13-1902. We further conclude the sentences are within the statutory limits and were imposed properly. See A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (G), (J).
We cite the current version of the statute, which has not changed in relevant part since Garcia's offenses. --------
¶4 However, in our review of the record pursuant to Anders, we noticed that the written sentencing minute entry order mistakenly lists the offenses as "nonrepetitive," rather than repetitive. Because it is clear from the record, including the trial court's finding of multiple historical prior felony convictions, its oral pronouncement at sentencing, and the sentences themselves that the offenses are repetitive, the sentencing minute entry shall be corrected accordingly. See State v. Hanson, 138 Ariz. 296, 304-05, 674 P.2d 850, 858-59 (App. 1983) ("Where there is a discrepancy between the oral sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls."); see also State v. Vandever, 211 Ariz. 206, ¶ 16, 119 P.3d 473, 477 (App. 2005) (appellate court authorized to correct inadvertent error in sentencing minute entry); State v. Lopez, 230 Ariz. 15, n.2, 279 P.3d 640, 643 n.2 (App. 2012) ("When we can ascertain the trial court's intent from the record, we need not remand for clarification.").
¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Garcia's convictions and sentences but correct the sentencing minute entry consistent with this decision.