Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0786
11-14-2017
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. PAYAM ZARAK SARI, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Mays Law Office PLLC, Phoenix By Wendy L. Mays 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. CR2013-115221-001
The Honorable Christopher A. Coury, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Mays Law Office PLLC, Phoenix
By Wendy L. Mays
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
McMURDIE, Judge:
¶1 Payam Zarak Sari appeals his convictions for four counts of attempt to commit trafficking in stolen property and one count of possession of dangerous drugs, all Class 4 felonies, and the resulting sentences. Sari'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. Sari was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for arguable issues. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Sari's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Sari owned and operated an electronics store, Electronics Xchange. On multiple occasions between December 2012 and March 2013, an undercover officer with the Mesa Police Department spoke with Sari and visited Electronics Xchange. On March 6, 2013, the undercover officer brought multiple items to Electronics Xchange, including a new, in-the-box PlayStation controller, wireless stereo speaker, and Blu-Ray disc DVD player, as well as various used items. The undercover officer told Sari the items came from a friend who worked at Target and assured Sari the friend was "smart" about how he gets items. Sari also asked the undercover officer if the officer was recording him. Sari agreed to pay the officer $160 for the items.
¶3 On March 20, 2013, the undercover officer brought used iPhones, an iPod, two car stereos, and a PlayStation game system to Electronics Xchange. The officer told Sari the car stereos were stolen and Sari agreed to purchase them anyway. On the same day, Sari asked the undercover officer if he used drugs, and gave the officer a usable quantity of methamphetamine.
¶4 On March 26, 2013, the undercover officer brought a new, in-the-box external hard drive into Electronics Xchange. The officer told Sari the friend who worked at Target "snagged" the hard drive from a Target store, and Sari asked the undercover officer how many more hard drives he could obtain. Sari purchased the hard drive for $15. Finally, on March 28, 2013, a second undercover officer bought three portable DVD players from Sari that had previously been sold to Electronics Xchange.
¶5 Most of the conversations between the undercover officers and Sari were audio-recorded. During the conversations, Sari told the undercover officer he does not report to the police everything he buys and sells, inquired about whether the undercover officer worked with the police, and told the officer not to tell anybody about bringing items to the store. During the investigation, Sari also showed the undercover officer how to remove a sticker with a serial number on it from a box without damaging the box and instructed the officer not to turn on cellphones with certain wireless carriers because they can be tracked.
¶6 The State indicted Sari on one count of participation in a criminal syndicate, a Class 2 felony; four counts of attempt to commit trafficking in stolen property, a Class 3 felony; and one count of sale or transportation of dangerous drugs, a Class 2 felony. Sari moved for a Rule 11 evaluation to determine if he was competent to stand trial. After a Rule 11 evaluation found Sari incompetent to stand trial, Sari completed a restoration course, which included psychiatric care, phycological testing, and a competency education program. The superior court found Sari understood the proceedings and was "able to assist counsel with [his] defense," and found him competent to stand trial.
¶7 After the trial was continued several times, a jury trial was held, at which Sari testified. After the State presented its case, Sari moved for a judgment of acquittal. The superior court denied the motion. The jury convicted Sari of four counts of attempt to commit trafficking in stolen property (Counts 2, 3, 5, and 6), and one count of possession of dangerous drugs (Count 4), all lesser included offenses of the crimes charged. The jury found Sari not guilty of participation in a criminal syndicate. The court sentenced Sari to the presumptive terms of 2.5 years' imprisonment for Count 3 and 4.5 years' imprisonment for Counts 5 and 6, as well as a mitigated term of 1.5 years' imprisonment for Count 4, and placed Sari on four years' probation for Count 2 upon release from imprisonment. The sentences for Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 were to run concurrent with each other. The court awarded Sari 326 days' presentence incarceration credit. Sari timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶8 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.
¶9 Sari was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. An interpreter was also present throughout the proceedings. The record reflects the superior court afforded Sari all his constitutional and statutory rights, and 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 and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Sari's sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
CONCLUSION
¶10 Sari's convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Sari's representation in this appeal will end after informing Sari 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, Sari 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.