Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0063
12-18-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANIEL VINCENT PETRI, Appellant.
COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20180244001
The Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender
By Michael J. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, David Petri was convicted of theft of a means of transportation, third-degree burglary, and credit-card theft, all while on pretrial release for a felony charge. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is 9.5 years.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record but did not find "any arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal" and asking this court to review the record for error. Petri has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-708(D), 13-1506(A)(1), 13-1814(A)(1), 13-2102(A)(1). In January 2018, while on release for a pending felony charge, Petri took a vehicle from near the owner's apartment without the owner's permission. Additionally, after his arrest the following day, law enforcement officers found in his pocket credit cards that recently had been taken from another vehicle. There was also sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Petri has at least eight previous felony convictions. Lastly, the sentences imposed are within the statutory ranges for the offenses. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-1506(B), 13-1814(D), 13-2102(B).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for error and found none. Accordingly, Petri's convictions and sentences are affirmed.