Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0383
08-20-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. THOMAS ARTHUR GOMEZ JR., 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Gila County
No. S0400CR201300167
The Honorable Gary V. Scales, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eppich concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement in 2014, appellant Thomas Gomez Jr. was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia, taking the identity of another, and two counts of third-degree burglary. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, 2.25-year prison terms on the burglary counts and ordered a three-year term of probation on the remaining counts, to commence on Gomez's release from prison. In July 2017, the state filed a petition to revoke probation, and after a contested hearing, the court found Gomez had violated the terms of his probation. The court sentenced Gomez to concurrent prison terms, the longer of which was two years.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Gomez has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling, the evidence was sufficient to support its finding that Gomez had violated the terms of his probation. See State v. Vaughn, 217 Ariz. 518, n.2 (App. 2008). The evidence presented showed he had used methamphetamines and had not attended substance abuse treatment, both in violation of the terms of his probation. We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(A), (D), 13-901.01(H)(4), 13-2008, 13-3415(A).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Gomez's convictions and sentences are affirmed.