Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0589
05-02-2019
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDWARD ANTHONY MORENO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Bain & Lauritano, Glendale By Amy E. Bain 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2016-005484-001
The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Bain & Lauritano, Glendale
By Amy E. Bain
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge James P. Beene joined.
CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Edward Anthony Moreno appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in stolen property in the second degree. Moreno's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Moreno was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Moreno's conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 In late February 2016, Moreno took a bicycle from a pawn shop without paying. In early March, he sold a bicycle with the same serial number to a different pawn shop. Later that month, the first pawn shop discovered the bicycle was missing and reported it to police, who traced it to Moreno and its sale to the second pawn shop.
¶3 Moreno was arrested and charged with trafficking in stolen property in the second degree. Moreno testified at trial and acknowledged that he had sold the bicycle to the second pawn shop for $20, but claimed that he had paid for the bicycle at the first pawn shop. The jury initially reported that it was deadlocked, but after the court gave an impasse instruction, the jury found Moreno guilty as charged. The jury further found one aggravating circumstance and that Moreno had committed the offense while on felony probation.
¶4 The superior court found that Moreno had two historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him as a category 3 repetitive offender to a presumptive term of 11.25 years, with credit for 146 days of presentence incarceration. Moreno timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶5 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.
¶6 Moreno was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Moreno all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Moreno's sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
CONCLUSION
¶7 Moreno's conviction and sentence are affirmed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Moreno's representation in this appeal will end after informing Moreno of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Moreno has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.