Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0205
12-30-2016
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TIMOTHY WAYNE BROYLES, Appellant.
COUNSEL Daniel J. DeRienzo, Prescott Valley 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Cochise County
No. S0200CR201400268
The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Daniel J. DeRienzo, Prescott Valley
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 Pursuant to a plea agreement encompassing three separate causes, appellant Timothy Broyles was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug, heroin, and fraudulent scheme and artifice. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Broyles on concurrent, four-year terms of intensive probation.
¶2 In June 2015, the state filed a petition to revoke Broyles's probation, and after a hearing, the trial court determined he had committed four of the alleged violations of probation. The court revoked probation and imposed concurrent prison terms, the longer of which was four years. Counsel has filed a brief in reliance on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no "error or arguable questions of law" to raise on appeal, and asking us to search the record for reversible error. Broyles has not filed a supplemental brief. Because he was sentenced after a contested revocation hearing, Broyles is entitled to appeal. See generally State v. Regenold, 226 Ariz. 378, ¶ 12, 249 P.3d 337, 380 (2011).
¶3 A probation violation "must be established by a preponderance of the evidence," Ariz. R. Crim. P. 27.8(b)(3), and we will uphold a trial court's finding of a violation "unless it is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence," State v. Moore, 125 Ariz. 305, 306, 609 P.2d 575, 576 (1980). The evidence presented at the violation hearing was sufficient to support the court's determination that Broyles had violated the terms of his probation. The evidence showed he had failed to complete a thirty-day residential treatment program because he was removed after violating the program's rules, possessed a deadly weapon, failed to report within seventy-two hours of his discharge from residential treatment, and had changed his residence, leaving his whereabouts unknown—all in violation of the terms of his probation. We further conclude Broyles's sentences were lawfully imposed and are within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702, 13-2310(A), 13-3408(A)(1), (B)(1).
Broyles filed a motion in this court asking that we either correct a clerical error in the trial court's sentencing minute entry or remand the matter for the trial court to do so. After we stayed the appeal and remanded the matter, the trial court corrected its minute entry and we affirm the sentences as corrected. --------
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, the trial court's order revoking Broyles's probation and the sentences imposed are affirmed.