Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0191
01-28-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. HIRAM MERAZ, Appellant.
Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20113222001
The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender
By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Miller concurred. ECKERSTROM, Judge:
¶1 Appellant Hiram Meraz was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree burglary and theft by control of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $2,000. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Meraz on concurrent, three-year terms of probation. 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), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no meritorious 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. Meraz has not filed a supplemental brief.
To the extent counsel suggests that Anders requires us to search the record for all error, not just fundamental error, our supreme court has restricted Anders review to fundamental error. State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). "The courts of this state are bound by the decisions of [the supreme] court and do not have the authority to modify or disregard [them]." State v. Smyers, 207 Ariz. 314, n.4, 86 P.3d 370, 374 n.4 (2004).
¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), it is sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. The victim testified she had returned home to find her front door pried open, her home ransacked, and over $1,000 worth of items missing from her home, including a stereo system, television, and gold jewelry. DNA extracted from blood found on a broken footboard in the victim's bedroom matched Meraz's DNA. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1507(A), 13-1802(A)(1), (E).
Deoxyribonucleic acid.
We cite the version of the theft statute in effect at the time of Meraz's 2005 offense. See 2004 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 181, § 1.
--------
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). Meraz's convictions and disposition are affirmed.