Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0109
10-16-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. NICHOLAS ROSS TAYLOR, Appellant.
COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Frank P. Leto, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20131577001
The Honorable Charles Sabalos, Judge The Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Frank P. Leto, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Vásquez concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Nicholas Taylor was convicted of criminal damage in an amount of at least $1,000 but less than $2,000 and two counts of threatening and intimidating. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Taylor on concurrent three-year terms of probation for each offense. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks this court to search the record for error.
¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdicts. In April 2013, Taylor defaced the windows of several businesses, causing several thousand dollars in damage. See A.R.S. § 13-1602(A)(1), (B)(4). When two individuals nearby physically restrained Taylor before his arrest, he threatened to return and harm them with the help of his "crews" or fellow gang members. See A.R.S. § 13-1202(A)(1). Furthermore, we find no error in the trial court's imposition of probation. See A.R.S. §§ 13-603(B), 13-901.
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (stating Anders requires court to search record for fundamental
error). Accordingly, Taylor's convictions and terms of probation are affirmed.