Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0363
03-02-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDITH HUGHES, Appellant.
COUNSEL Harriette P. Levitt, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County
No. CR201500238
The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eppich concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Edith Hughes was convicted of unlawful use of a power of attorney, fraudulent use of a credit card, fraudulent schemes and artifices, and two counts of theft from a vulnerable adult. The trial court sentenced her to presumptive, concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was five years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has "found no arguable issues" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Hughes has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. The evidence presented at trial showed Hughes had obtained a power of attorney for the victim, who was eighty-six and suffered from dementia, and had used the victim's accounts and debit cards to make cash withdrawals, car payments, and personal purchases, taking a total amount over $4,000. We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limit. A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-1802(B), (G), 13-1815, 13-2105(A), 13-2310.
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Hughes's convictions and sentences are affirmed.