Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department D
Not for Publication-Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2012-005723-001 The Honorable Pamela D. Svoboda, Commissioner
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee.
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Phoenix By Christopher V. Johns, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant
JON W. THOMPSON, Judge.
¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Roland Urban Willingham (defendant), after searching the entire record, has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has not done so.
¶2 In August 2011, a Walmart loss-prevention employee noticed, through video surveillance, defendant and another male pushing a shopping cart inside a Walmart. The duo loaded clothing, diapers, laundry detergent, and a backpack into the cart. They stuffed the backpack with clothing, and defendant began to wear the backpack. The pair then headed for the store's main exit, walking past a row of nearly thirty cash registers. After observing that they did not pay for the merchandise, the employee apprehended defendant outside the store; the other male ran away. Upon being caught, defendant stated, "wow, you guys are good." Phoenix Police Officer Susanne Fitch was called to the scene, and, after being Mirandized, defendant admitted to her that he was not planning on paying for the merchandise.
¶3 The state charged defendant with one count of organized retail theft, a class four felony. At trial, Officer Fitch testified that defendant had neither the resources nor the intention of purchasing the merchandise, which she deduced from the Walmart interrogation.
¶4 The jury convicted defendant as charged. During sentencing, defendant admitted to two prior felony convictions and to being on felony probation when he committed the offense, making him a category three repetitive offender. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(C) (2010). Consequently, the court sentenced defendant to the presumptive term of ten years in prison with two years of probation upon release. The court gave defendant 214 days of presentence incarceration credit. Defendant timely appealed.
¶5 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant's counsel's obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence.
CONCURRING: JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge, DONN ...