Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0161
02-13-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SHANE BLAYLOCK WALLS, Defendant/Appellee.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Kenneth S. Countryman, PC, Phoenix By Kenneth S. Countryman Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-124398-001
The Honorable Robert E. Miles, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Kenneth S. Countryman, PC, Phoenix
By Kenneth S. Countryman
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
OROZCO, Judge:
¶1 Shane Blaylock Walls (Defendant) appeals his convictions and resulting sentences for attempt to commit burglary in the second degree, second degree burglary, and theft. Defendant's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that after a search of the entire appellate record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Defendant was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but has not done so.
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review "the entire record for reversible error." State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.2d 89, 96 (App. 1999). Finding no reversible error, we affirm Defendant's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3 On May 9, 2012, L.W. returned home from work to find two of her bedrooms ransacked. At trial, L.W. testified that she noticed her jewelry boxes were empty and the dresser drawers were open. L.W. also testified that in addition to her missing jewelry, other items, including a pair of headphones and a picture of her sister and brother-in-law were missing. L.W. prepared a list of the missing items and estimated their total value at $16,578. L.W.'s husband, J.W., also testified as to the state of their home after the theft.
¶4 F.C., who lives across the street from L.W., testified that at approximately 11:00 that morning, he noticed a small red import car with a spoiler on its trunk enter his circular driveway and pull over by his garage. Assuming someone was there to talk to him, F.C. got up to look out the window. At that time, the car exited his driveway and drove away. F.C. also testified he only saw the driver's silhouette and was unable to determine how many people were in the car.
¶5 Earlier that day, C.M. answered a ring at her front door and observed two men, who she later identified as Defendant and his co-defendant, holding a FedEx box. The men asked C.M. if they were at the "Banner" residence. When C.M. answered in the negative, the co-defendant handed her the box and told C.M. "your FedEx man gave this to me." C.M. took the box and immediately closed the door. C.M. testified that she observed the men in a red Mitsubishi Eclipse, which was parked in her driveway. Once inside, C.M. took down the vehicle's license plate number. She immediately called police, gave a description of the men and provided the vehicle's description and license plate number.
¶6 Later that morning, a Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputy (Officer K.) saw a red Mitsubishi matching the description given by C.M. heading southbound. Officer K. began following the vehicle and verified it was the same license plate C.M. provided in her phone call. After the driver made an abrupt turn without signaling the officer initiated a traffic stop. Officer K. identified Defendant as the driver and his co-defendant as the passenger. Officer K. also noticed tools on the backseat and the floor board behind the driver, which included a screw driver and crowbar. Ultimately, the police arrested both men.
¶7 Officer K. escorted both men to the station where they were searched. The officer found a pair of black gloves in Defendant's pocket; Defendant spontaneously declared they were "working gloves." After obtaining a search warrant a detective searched the inside of the vehicle. A pillowcase that L.W. later identified as coming from her daughter's bedroom contained "piles of strewn jewelry." The detective also found other items, including headphones, a pair of gloves, the photograph of L.W.'s sister and brother-in-law, and two "fairly large crowbars."
¶8 Defendant was charged with: (1) attempt to commit burglary in the second degree, a class four felony; (2) burglary in the second degree, a class three felony; and (3) theft, a class three felony. The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to ten years' imprisonment as to count one and eleven and one quarter years' imprisonment each as to counts two and three. All sentenced to be served concurrently. Defendant received 302 days of pre-sentence incarceration credit.
¶9 Defendant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21.A.1 (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033.A.1 (2010).
DISCUSSION
¶10 We review the sufficiency of evidence "in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction . . . ." State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552, 633 P.2d 355, 361 (1981). Any reasonable inferences are resolved against the defendant. Id. A reversal of a conviction based on insufficiency of evidence requires a clear showing that there is not sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion, under any hypothesis whatsoever. State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, 231, ¶ 6, 99 P.3d 43, 46 (App. 2004) (stating that we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury).
¶11 A person is guilty of attempt if he possesses the requisite mental state for the underlying crime and intentionally takes "any step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in commission of an offense." A.R.S. § 13-1001.A.2 (2010). Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1507 "[a] person commits burglary in the second degree by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure with the intent to commit any theft or felony therein." Id. § 13-1507 (2010). Finally, the crime of theft requires that the defendant, without lawful authority, knowingly control another's property "with the intent to deprive the other person of such property." Id. § 13-1802.A.1 (Supp. 2013).
¶12 Here, C.M. identified Defendant as being present at her doorstep while his co-defendant asked for a fictitious resident. Witnesses also identified Defendant as the driver of the vehicle and being in possession of a pair of gloves. The vehicle's contents also included two crowbars and a pillow case containing all of the jewelry L.W. reported stolen, the headphones, and the missing picture of L.W.'s sister and brother-in-law. The pillowcase was also identified as coming from L.W.'s home. Moreover, F.C. testified he saw a red vehicle, which could have been the one Defendant was driving, circle his driveway that morning.
¶13 Based on the evidence presented, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude Defendant attempted to commit burglary of C.M.'s home, burglarized the home of L.W. and J.W., and committed theft by taking property from their home. Thus, we find sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury's verdicts.
CONCLUSION
¶14 We have carefully searched the entire appellate record for reversible error and have found none. See Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49, 2 P.3d at 100. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. We find substantial evidence
supported the jury's guilty verdicts. Defendant was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing, Defendant and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak, and the court imposed a legal sentence. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
¶15 Counsel's obligations pertaining to Appellant's representation in this appeal have ended. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584, 684 P.2d 154, 156 (1984). Counsel need do nothing more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless Counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See id. at 585, 684 P.2d at 157. Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.