Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department B
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20120769001 Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge
Harriette P. Levitt, Attorney for Appellant
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Michael Cruz was convicted of attempted armed robbery and attempted aggravated assault, dangerous nature offenses. After finding Cruz had two prior felony convictions, the trial court imposed concurrent, mitigated and minimum terms of imprisonment, the longer of which is nine years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found "no arguable issues" to raise on appeal. She asks us to search the record for "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." 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. Cruz has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 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, when the victim, H., a grocery store manager, questioned Cruz about the contents of his backpack, Cruz responded, "You're not going to stop me, " pulled out a "steak knife, " and fled from the store. H. feared Cruz would harm him or other customers with the knife. A South Tucson Police officer apprehended Cruz shortly after he had left the store and found "[p]ackages of meat" from the grocery store inside his backpack. We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of the elements necessary for Cruz's convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1902(A), 13-1904(A), 13- 1203(A)(2), 13-1204(A)(2), 13-1001(A), and his sentences are within the authorized range, see A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J).
¶3 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. 386 U.S. at 744. Therefore, we ...