Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0690
07-22-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ROBERT THOMAS DEAN, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Peg Green Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 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. CR2012-140409-001
The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Peg Green
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.
HOWE, Judge:
¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Dean asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Dean was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Dean's conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Dean. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998).
¶3 Rick Schramm and Dean had been acquaintances since 2000, when they worked together at a flooring company. In 2003, Schramm started his own flooring company, Anthem Hardwood Floors, LLC. Schramm hired Dean to work for his company on an off-and-on basis.
¶4 In 2011, Dean was working on a project for Schramm. Dean had two of Anthem's trailers - one used for hauling trash and one that held a majority of the company's tools. In October 2011, Schramm fired Dean, while Dean still had the two trailers in his possession.
¶5 Schramm tried to call Dean to return the trailers, but Dean did not answer. Schramm finally reached Dean through Dean's girlfriend. Dean told Schramm that he believed Schramm owed him money and was holding the trailers as collateral. Schramm contacted the police to get his trailers back. With Schramm present, two police officers arrived at Dean's home and spoke to Dean. Dean explained that the sander and the buffer that were previously inside the trailers were pawned by his associate, Bradshaw, to provide payment to Bradshaw for completing a job with him.
¶6 With the police officer present, Dean and Schramm agreed that Dean would have ten days to recover the sander and the buffer from the pawn shop. Dean stated that he had a few jobs coming up, and once he completed the jobs he would have money to get the items back from the pawn shop and return them to Schramm.
¶7 Schramm left with the trailers, and Dean did not return the sander and buffer within the following ten days. After the twelfth day, Schramm contacted the police officer who had been present for their agreement, and told him that Dean had not returned the tools.
¶8 The officer wrote a report for theft and referred the case to a detective, who continued to try to work with Dean to get the sander and buffer back. After a few months of giving Dean the chance to re-purchase the sander and buffer for Schramm, Dean never repurchased the items.
¶9 The State charged Dean with one count of trafficking in stolen property, a class 3 felony. A public defender was appointed to act as counsel for Dean. The public defender's office moved to withdraw as Dean's counsel because it had previously represented an adverse witness and acquired confidential information about Dean. The motion was granted, and new counsel was appointed.
¶10 The State alleged that Dean had multiple historical prior felony convictions. The State made a plea offer and Dean was informed of the penalties he would face if convicted. Dean rejected the plea offer.
¶11 At trial, Schramm, the police officer, the detective, the pawnshop owner, and Dean testified. Dean testified that Bradshaw had somehow taken the keys to the trailer from Dean's pocket, and pawned the items without Dean's knowledge. Dean explained that he had tried to work to repurchase the items from the pawn shop, but the jobs he had scheduled fell through. On the third morning of trial, Dean did not appear and the court issued a bench warrant. Trial continued, and Dean appeared in the afternoon session. Because Dean had failed to appear earlier that day, Dean was taken into custody on the bench warrant. At the close of the evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. The jury found Dean guilty of trafficking in stolen property, in the second degree.
¶12 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Dean's constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26. The trial court sentenced Dean to 7.5 years'
imprisonment, a mitigated term for an individual with two prior felony convictions, and gave him credit for 36 days presentence incarceration.
DISCUSSION
¶13 We review Dean's convictions and sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991).
¶14 Counsel for Dean has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, she has found no arguable question of law. We have read and considered counsel's brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Dean was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing and we affirm Dean's conviction and sentence.
¶15 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Dean of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel has no further obligations 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). Dean shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. On the Court's own motion, we extend the time for Dean to file a pro per motion for reconsideration to thirty days from the date of this decision.
CONCLUSION
¶16 We affirm Dean's conviction and sentence.