Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0382
04-09-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GUADALUPE AGUILAR SALAZAR, Appellant.
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen Tucson Attorneys for Appellant
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20100387001
Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge
AFFIRMED
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Abigail Jensen
Tucson
Attorneys for Appellant
HOWARD, Chief Judge. ¶1 Appellant Guadalupe Salazar appeals from her conviction and disposition for armed robbery, entered after a jury trial. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Salazar on a three-year term of probation, ordering her to serve thirty days' incarceration as a condition of her probation. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, she has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record," 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, and asks this court to search the record for error. Salazar has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established the following. In January 2010, Salazar entered a tavern, told the bartender she had a gun, threatened and struck the bartender with a gun-shaped object wrapped in a T-shirt, and took $240 from the cash register. The jury found Salazar guilty of armed robbery, but found the state had failed to prove the robbery was a dangerous offense. ¶4 We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1902 and 13-1904(A)(1). Salazar was represented by counsel, and the term and conditions of her probation were authorized by statute and imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(A), (B), (F) and 13-902(A)(1). In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Salazar's conviction and disposition.
________________________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
CONCURRING: ________________________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge
___________________
MICHAEL MILLER, Judge