Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0091
09-12-2012
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LUIS CARLOS DORAME-RUIZ, Appellant.
Emily Danies Tucson Attorney 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Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court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 GILA COUNTY
Cause No. CR201000636
Honorable Peter J. Cahill, Judge
AFFIRMED
Emily Danies Tucson
Attorney for Appellant
ESPINOSA, Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Luis Dorame-Ruiz was convicted of second-degree trafficking in stolen property and false reporting to a law enforcement officer. He was sentenced to a 6.5-year prison term for trafficking in stolen property and a concurrent 180-day jail term for false reporting. 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" but has found "[n]o arguable question of law" to raise on appeal and asking this court to review the record for fundamental error. Dorame-Ruiz has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts. State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that Dorame-Ruiz transferred stolen property—a compound bow and a recurve bow—to another, knowing the bows had been stolen, and that he misled a police officer who was investigating the theft of the bows. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. See A.R.S. §§ 13-2301(B), 13-2307(A), 13-2907.01(A). ¶3 Further, Dorame-Ruiz's sentences were within the prescribed statutory range and were imposed lawfully. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-707(A)(1), 13-708(A), 13-2307(C), 13-2907.01(B). Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, Dorame-Ruiz's convictions and sentences are affirmed.
____________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING: _____________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
____________________
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge