Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0456
05-30-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM SCHAEFFLER, Appellant.
Emily Danies Attorney 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Not for Publication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. CR20120882002
Honorable Michael O. Miller, Judge
AFFIRMED
Emily Danies Tucson
Attorney for Appellant
KELLY, Judge. ¶1 Appellant William Schaeffler was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree burglary and criminal damage. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence, placed him on concurrent terms of probation for a period of three years, and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,361.60. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found "[n]o arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. She asks us to search the record for fundamental error. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record." Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and we conclude it supports counsel's recitation of the facts. Schaeffler has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in February 2012, the victim returned home to find a large hole in the wall near the front door of her home. Schaeffler acknowledged to police that he and a friend had entered the home without the owner's permission and damaged it. Inside, the victim discovered extensive vandalism, including a broken light fixture, mirror and television, smashed drywall with holes kicked in, and broken eggs strewn throughout the house. The victim testified the repairs to her home cost $8,000 and that the missing and damaged items were worth $1,800. We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of the elements necessary for Schaeffler's convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1507, 13-1602(A), (B)(3), and the probation imposed is an authorized disposition, see A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(2), (4). ¶4 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. Therefore, we affirm Schaeffler's convictions and disposition.
__________________________
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge
CONCURRING: __________________________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
__________________________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge