Opinion
2 CA-CR 2011-0202
05-15-2012
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSE LUIS DORAME, Appellant.
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Frank P. Leto Tucson Attorneys for Appellant
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MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20102849001
Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge
AFFIRMED
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Frank P. Leto
Tucson Attorneys for Appellant
BRAMMER, Judge.
¶1 Appellant Jose Dorame was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree burglary and, after finding Dorame had one historical prior felony, the trial court sentenced him to a mitigated, four-year prison term. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no "meritorious issue to raise on appeal." Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Dorame has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that, in August 2010, Dorame and another individual forced open the door to a residence, entered it, and Dorame took a resident's prescription medication and car key. A.R.S. § 13-1507(A). Dorame's sentence was within the prescribed statutory range and was imposed lawfully. A.R.S. §§ 13-701; 13-703(B)(2), (I); 13-1507(B).
¶3 Dorame's counsel notes that "[t]he arguable issue that trespass is a lesser included offense of burglary has been foreclosed by our Supreme Court in State v. Malloy, 131 Ariz. 125, 639 P.2d 315 (1981)," but states this court may address that issue and asks that we find Malloy "inapplicable." But he does not explain why it would be inapplicable and we find no basis to so conclude.
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Dorame's conviction and sentence.
________________________
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge
CONCURRING:
________________________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
________________________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge