Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 10-0685
10-25-2011
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ANTHONY JOE CAMPOS, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication - Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2010-005396-001 DT
The Honorable Barbara L. Spencer, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
By Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix JOHNSEN , Judge
¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), following Anthony Joe Campos's conviction of one count of shoplifting with two predicate prior convictions, a Class 4 felony; one count of organized retail theft, a Class 4 felony; and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony. Campos's counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Campos was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Campos's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Campos entered a Phoenix convenience store, picked up two 30-packs of beer and left the store without paying. Police responding to a report of the theft encountered Campos, then without the beer, a few blocks away from the store. Campos was arrested after the convenience-store clerk identified him. Campos admitted he stole the beer and traded it for crack cocaine at a nearby drug house. Officers searched Campos incident to arrest and recovered a still-warm crack pipe, a push rod and a lighter.
Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict and resolve all inferences against Campos. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998).
¶3 Campos was charged with shoplifting with two predicate convictions, organized retail theft and possession of drug paraphernalia. At trial, the jury found Campos guilty of all three counts. The court found two historical prior felony convictions and sentenced Campos to mitigated concurrent terms of imprisonment, the greatest of which is eight years.
¶4 Campos 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) (2011), 13-4031 (2011) and -4033 (2011).
Absent material revisions after the date of an alleged offense, we cite a statute's current version.
--------
DISCUSSION
¶5 The record reflects Campos received a fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. He was present at all critical pretrial stages as well as the entire trial, including the verdict. The court held a pretrial hearing on Campos's motion to dismiss the organized retail theft charge for lack of corpus delecti; the court denied the motion, finding that adequate independent evidence beyond Campos's own statements supported a reasonable inference that Campos traded the stolen beer for crack cocaine.
¶6 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly composed of 12 members. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, the State's burden of proof and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which was confirmed by juror polling. The court received and considered a presentence report and addressed its contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed legal sentences on the charges of which Campos was convicted. The court did not deny Campos presentence incarceration credit to which he was entitled by law.
CONCLUSION
¶7 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881.
¶8 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Campos's representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Campos of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds "an issue appropriate for submission" to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). On the court's own motion, Campos has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Campos has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.
DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge JON W. THOMPSON, Judge