Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0244
05-07-2024
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CRYSTAL LYNN ROSE, Appellant.
Zickerman Law Office, Flagstaff By Adam Zickerman Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR202280275 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge
Zickerman Law Office, Flagstaff By Adam Zickerman Counsel for Appellant
Judge O'Neil authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Sklar concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
O'NEIL, JUDGE
¶1 After a jury trial, Crystal Rose was convicted of criminal damage causing at least $1,000 but less than $2,000 in damage. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Rose on a three-year term 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 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record but found no "error that is worthy of bringing forth" and asking this court to search the record for error. Rose has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. § 13-1602(A)(1), (B)(4). In November 2021, Rose damaged the victim's vehicle by scratching its paint, causing more than $1,000 in damage. The period of probation was lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-902(A)(4), 13-1602(B)(4).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Rose's conviction and disposition.