Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0105
03-06-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANDREW LEE NEWTON, Appellant.
COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel By Diane Leigh Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Harriette P. Levitt, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pinal County
No. S1100CR201601918
The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel
By Diane Leigh Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson
Counsel for Appellee
Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
EPPICH, Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Andrew Newton was convicted of trafficking in stolen property. The trial court sentenced him to a thirteen-year term of imprisonment. 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 issues on appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error.
¶2 In our review of the record pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we discovered a non-frivolous claim and ordered supplemental briefing by counsel on the issue of whether, in light of Newton's indictment specifying he was charged with trafficking in stolen property "in or near Tucson, Arizona," venue was appropriate and whether the Pinal County Superior Court had jurisdiction of the matter. On the record before us, the evidence was sufficient to establish Newton had stolen and controlled the stolen property in Pinal County, and venue was therefore appropriate in that county. See State v. Mohr, 150 Ariz. 564 (App. 1986); State v. Cox, 25 Ariz. App. 328 (1975). Newton's counsel has made no separate argument that the indictment was defective or that venue was otherwise inappropriate based on the state's having specified in the indictment that the offense took place in "Tucson, Arizona," outside Pinal County. Any such argument is therefore waived. See State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 298 (1995) ("Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.").
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. See State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013). The evidence presented at trial showed Newton attempted to pawn in Tucson stereo equipment taken during a burglary in Oracle, and other items taken in the burglary were found in a vehicle Newton had been using. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(J), 13
2301(B)(2), (3), 13-2305, 13-2307(A), (C). We have searched the record for any other fundamental, reversible error and have found none.
¶4 Newton's convictions and sentences are affirmed.