Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0163
01-24-2019
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL DEMELLO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Jesse Finn Turner Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2016-158191-001
The Honorable David O. Cunanan, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Jesse Finn Turner
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Michael Demello appeals his convictions of threatening or intimidating, a class 1 misdemeanor, disorderly conduct, a class 6 felony, and resisting arrest, a class 6 felony, and the resulting sentences. Demello's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Demello was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Demello's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Early one evening in December 2016, Demello entered a Phoenix public bus, refused to pay the fare, and threatened to cut the bus driver while holding a box cutter, placing the driver in fear for his life. Nearby uniformed Phoenix police officers heard a commotion and observed Demello at the front of the bus yelling. One officer initiated contact with Demello, while the other spoke to the bus driver. After being informed by the bus driver that Demello had a box cutter in his hand, the officer grabbed Demello's arm and took him to the ground. The officers then gave multiple commands to drop the box cutter, and when Demello failed to do so, the officers forced it out of Demello's hand and placed him under arrest. Demello was charged with three counts: threatening or intimidating, disorderly conduct (dangerous), and resisting arrest.
¶3 Demello requested a jury trial, and the jury found him guilty as charged, but found that the disorderly conduct charge was non-dangerous. After the superior court found that Demello had one non-historical prior felony conviction, the court sentenced Demello as a category one repetitive offender to concurrent 1-year prison terms for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, as well as 30 days in jail with time served for threatening or intimidating. Demello timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶4 The record reflects that the superior court afforded Demello all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Demello was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him, and he was present for all of the proceedings other than a trial management conference, at which defense counsel waived Demello's presence. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Demello's sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
CONCLUSION
¶5 Demello's convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Demello's representation in this appeal will end after informing Demello of the outcome of this 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 State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Demello has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.