From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Mihaila

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Apr 2, 2019
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0041 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2019)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0041

04-02-2019

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TEOFIL MIHAILA, Appellant.

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Jana Zinman Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Carlos Daniel Carrion Counsel for Appellant


NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2017-102688-001
The Honorable William R. Wingard, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Jana Zinman
Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Carlos Daniel Carrion
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Acting Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined. HOWE, Judge:

¶1 Teofil Mihaila appeals his conviction and sentence for burglary, one of the three convictions involved in this case. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts. State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509 ¶ 93 (2013). While C.M. and Mihaila were finalizing their divorce, C.M. obtained an order of protection against Mihaila, which was served on him in June 2016. The protective order designated the family residence as a "protected location," granted C.M. exclusive use and possession of that residence, prohibited Mihaila from maintaining any contact with his three children, and restricted him to only telephonic contact with C.M.

¶3 While the order of protection was in effect, Mihaila repeatedly contacted C.M. and entered her property without her permission. Between November 2016 and January 2017, Mihaila telephoned C.M. on numerous occasions and left her nearly 50 voicemails. He also came to the family residence on three separate occasions and damaged its surveillance system.

¶4 On December 1, 2016, Mihaila used a key to open a locked gate and entered C.M.'s backyard. Mihaila then "pulled off" security cameras from the south side of C.M.'s backyard, above her garage, and above her front door. After later inspecting the premises, C.M. determined that three cameras were "destroyed" and had to be replaced. C.M.'s brother replaced the cameras and some cables that were severed during the incident. The brother and a friend got the security system running "in some working condition[.]"

¶5 On December 15, 2016, Mihaila again returned to the home and removed four cameras—two near the front of the home and two near the back. Mihaila returned to the home for a third time on January 16, 2017, and removed another camera. In total, Mihaila removed eight cameras from the residence, seven of which were never recovered.

¶6 Following the January 16 incident, C.M. contacted a security system company to inspect the damage to the surveillance system. The owner of the company found that the front camera near C.M.'s patio had been "ripped out of the ceiling" and was "destroyed" and "unusable." He determined that the entire surveillance system had to be replaced to make the system operable because simply replacing the destroyed cameras would "cost more money than . . . just going ahead and putting in an entire new system[.]" The owner explained that "[r]eplacing one camera would require replacing the entire system," which would cost $2,275.

¶7 C.M. reported Mihaila's phone calls and the surveillance system damage to the police. Glendale Police Department Detective Shane Lee investigated the case. The detective administered Miranda warnings to Mihaila and interviewed him. Mihaila admitted to entering C.M.'s yard and removing surveillance cameras on both December 1 and December 15. He also told the detective that he was aware of the protective order and knew that he "was not supposed to be at the home address[.]" When the detective asked Mihaila what he had done with the cameras, Mihaila told him that C.M. "should have checked the trash cans."

¶8 In January 2017, the State indicted Mihaila on (1) one count of aggravated harassment, a class 6 felony; (2) one count of third-degree burglary (committed on December 1, 2016), a class 4 felony; and (3) one count of third-degree burglary (committed on December 15, 2016), a class 4 felony. At the subsequent jury trial, the State presented evidence that Mihaila entered C.M.'s property in violation of the protective order and destroyed the surveillance cameras. C.M. also testified that Mihaila's conduct "caused [her] stress" and made her feel "[h]arassed, emotional, [and] scared." The court also received exhibits, including a surveillance video dated December 1, 2016, that showed Mihaila walking around C.M.'s property with a hammer and a wire-cutting tool.

¶9 After the State rested, Mihaila moved for a judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. In doing so, he argued that "there was not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt [he] . . . committed or broke[] any laws in regards to aggravated harassment or domestic violence" because he "was not arrested at any time for any violence committed." He also argued that neither of the burglary charges were proven because he could not "have burglarized [his] own property" and the State failed to "show any criminal damage of any kind." The trial court denied the motion because it found that the State had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a reasonable jury to find all the elements of the charged offenses.

¶10 Thereafter, the court gave final instructions to the jury and explained, among other things, the elements of aggravated harassment and third-degree burglary. The court explained that third-degree burglary requires proof that the defendant entered or remained unlawfully in or on a fenced residential yard and did so with the intent to commit any theft or another felony therein. The court then instructed that the underlying felonies to consider for the burglary counts were "Aggravated Harassment and/or Criminal Damage over $1,000."

¶11 The jury convicted Mihaila on all counts. The court sentenced Mihaila to concurrent terms of one year's imprisonment for his aggravated assault conviction and 2.5 years' imprisonment for each of his third-degree burglary convictions. The court also credited Mihaila with 361 days' presentence incarceration credit. Mihaila timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶12 Mihaila challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his burglary conviction committed on December 1, 2016, maintaining that the State did not present evidence that he had intended to commit felony criminal damage in excess of $1,000. We review claims of insufficient evidence de novo. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562 ¶ 15 (2011). "[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at ¶ 16 (quoting State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 66 (1990)). Sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury can convict may be circumstantial or direct. Id. A judgment of acquittal is appropriate only when "there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1). We neither reweigh conflicting evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Borquez, 232 Ariz. 484, 487-88 ¶¶ 9, 12 (App. 2013).

¶13 As relevant here, to support a conviction of third-degree burglary, the State must show that the defendant entered or remained unlawfully in or on a fenced residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or felony therein. A.R.S. § 13-1506(A)(1). The State presented evidence showing that Mahaila unlawfully entered and remained in C.M.'s backyard. He also removed and destroyed several surveillance cameras. The evidence also showed that a hammer and a wire-cutting tool were used during the December 1 incident. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to support the conviction, was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mihaila committed third-degree burglary on December 1.

¶14 Mihaila contends nonetheless that the State failed to prove that the damage he caused to the cameras on December 1 exceeded $1,000. Under A.R.S. § 13-1602(B)(4), criminal damage constitutes a felony if a person "recklessly damages property of another in an amount of one thousand dollars or more[.]" The burden of proving damages rests with the State but no particular method for calculating damages is required; rather, "the amount [of damages] is determined by applying a rule of reasonableness to the particular fact situation presented." State v. Brockell, 187 Ariz. 226, 228 (App. 1996). Here, the evidence presented at trial shows that the damages on December 1 exceeded $1,000. According to the record, C.M. testified that she obtained an estimate to replace the security system in the amount of $2,275. And the State showed—through the testimony of a security system vendor—that replacing a single camera required replacing the entire surveillance system. Further, although Mihaila was free to present evidence and argument about the damages-amount calculation, he failed to do so. As such, the jury could reasonably find that Mihaila caused damages that exceeded the $1,000 necessary to satisfy the statutory threshold for a class six felony under A.R.S. § 13-1602(B)(4).

CONCLUSION

¶15 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).


Summaries of

State v. Mihaila

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Apr 2, 2019
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0041 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2019)
Case details for

State v. Mihaila

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TEOFIL MIHAILA, Appellant.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Apr 2, 2019

Citations

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0041 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2019)