Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0142
10-08-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MARK ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, Appellant.
COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Erin K. Sutherland, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20132478001
The Honorable Richard D. Nichols, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Erin K. Sutherland, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Howard authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Brammer concurred. HOWARD, Judge:
The Hon. J. William Brammer, Jr., a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court.
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Mark Hernandez was convicted of second-degree burglary, a class three felony. The trial court placed Hernandez on probation for a period of three years and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $5,731.82. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and has asked this court to search the record for error. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and we conclude it supports counsel's recitation of the facts. Hernandez has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in October 2012, the victim returned home to find a screen missing from her front window, her house "disheveled," and over $6,000 worth of items missing from her home, including her mother's wedding dress, a camera, several musical instruments, a ring, and medication. Fingerprints found on the victim's television set matched Hernandez's fingerprints. Neither the victim nor her husband knew Hernandez, nor had he performed any work on televisions or had any reason to be in the victim's home. We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of the elements necessary for Hernandez's conviction, see A.R.S. § 13-1507(A), and the probation imposed is an authorized disposition, see A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(2).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Therefore, we affirm Hernandez's conviction and disposition.