Opinion
1 CA-CR 12-0049
05-02-2013
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANIEL STEVEN KLINE, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Law Offices of Ronald M. DeBrigida, Jr. by Ronald M. DeBrigida, Jr. 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(Not for Publication -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
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2010-006295-001
The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
by Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel,
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix Law Offices of Ronald M. DeBrigida, Jr.
by Ronald M. DeBrigida, Jr.
Attorney for Appellant
Glendale 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 Daniel Steven Kline has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so.
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 Defendant was caught on video surveillance selling a stolen 2004 Nissan Titan to an undercover police detective. He was subsequently charged with trafficking in stolen property in the second degree and theft of means of transportation against the truck's owner, Auto Auction. ¶3 At trial, the sales manager of Auto Auction testified that he reported the truck stolen after he discovered the unique orange colored truck missing from its spot in the front of the dealership. He also testified that he did not give Defendant permission to possess or sell the truck. ¶4 The undercover police detective who purchased the truck testified that he was contacted about purchasing a stolen truck. He met Defendant and his accomplice in a parking lot to finalize the sale. After Defendant told him that the truck had been stolen from a dealership, the detective negotiated a price, paid Defendant $500, and directed Defendant's accomplice to give the keys to the detective's associate. In addition to the testimony, the jury watched the video surveillance of the sale. ¶5 After the final instructions, the jury deliberated and convicted Defendant as charged. He was subsequently sentenced to concurrent minimum terms of five and a half years in prison and given 235 days of presentence incarceration credit. We have jurisdiction over his 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
¶6 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. Moreover, Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. ¶7 The evidence supports the convictions. In addition to the detective and sales manager, the owner of Auto Auction testified he did not give Defendant permission to possess or sell the truck. The jury had to determine the credibility of the witnesses, find the facts from the evidence presented, and determine whether the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Piatt, 132 Ariz. 145, 150-51, 644 P.2d 881, 886-87 (1981). The jury was properly instructed. Consequently, substantial evidence supports the conviction. ¶8 Moreover, the sentence is within the statutory range, and presentence incarceration credit was properly calculated. Accordingly, we find no reversible error or fundamental error that would require a new trial. ¶9 After this decision is filed, counsel's obligation to represent Defendant in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and Defendant's 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). Defendant 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 Defendant's convictions and sentences.
___________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge
CONCURRING: ___________
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge
___________
PHILIP HALL, Judge