Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 13-0143
01-16-2014
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MATTHEW JOHNSON, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Terry J. Adams Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-124398-002
The Honorable Robert E. Miles, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Terry J. Adams
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. PORTLEY, Judge:
¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Matthew Johnson has advised us that he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law after searching the entire record and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Johnson did not take the opportunity to file a supplemental brief.
FACTS
We view the facts "in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant." State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89, 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997).
¶2 CM, the victim, was at home on May 9, 2012. She heard her doorbell and answered the front door. Johnson and another man were at her doorstep and Johnson was holding a Fed-Ex package addressed to CM. He asked if it was the Banner residence. After CM said, "no," Johnson handed her the package and stated, "[Y]our Fed-Ex man gave this to me." After the exchange, CM observed Johnson and the other individual leave her residence in a red Mitsubishi Eclipse. Feeling uneasy, CM called the Sheriff's Department and provided them with a description of the two individuals, the car, and the car's license plate number.
At trial, a detective testified that a tactic burglars may use is for an individual to ring the doorbell of a house to determine if it is occupied before breaking into the house.
¶3 Approximately forty-five minutes later, a Maricopa County Sheriff's deputy stopped the red Mitsubishi with Johnson and the other man. Johnson was read his Miranda warnings and arrested. He was transported to the Sheriff's substation and searched, and a clear plastic baggie containing a white crystal substance, later identified as methamphetamine, was found. A subsequent search of the car revealed a pillowcase containing miscellaneous pieces of jewelry, two crowbars, and two pairs of gloves. Shortly after Johnson's arrest, CM was called to the substation and she identified Johnson, the vehicle, and the other man.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
--------
¶4 LW came home later that day, discovered that her home had been broken into and that various pieces of jewelry and personal property were missing. She then called the Sheriff's Department. She was requested to come to the substation, where she identified the jewelry that had been recovered from the car. Johnson later admitted to a Sheriff's detective that he committed the burglary and that the plastic baggie of methamphetamine belonged to him.
¶5 Johnson was charged with attempt to commit burglary in the second degree, a class four felony, burglary in the second degree, a class three felony, theft, a class three felony, possession or use of dangerous drugs, a class four felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony. The case went to trial. After the evidence was presented, the jury was instructed on the elements of each offense and also on determining the voluntariness of Johnson's statements to the Sheriff's detective. Johnson was found guilty on all charges.
¶6 Johnson subsequently admitted to a prior felony offense. He was then sentenced to concurrent prison terms as follows: 2.5 years for attempted burglary, 3.5 years for burglary, 3.5 years for theft, 2.5 years for possession or use of a dangerous drug, and one year for possession of drug paraphernalia. He also received 288 days of presentence incarceration credit.
¶7 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (West 2013).
DISCUSSION
¶8 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Johnson was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits.
¶9 After this decision is filed, counsel's obligation to represent Johnson in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform him of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Johnson may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
CONCLUSION
¶10 Accordingly, we affirm Johnson's convictions and sentences.