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Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court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. CR20120989001 Honorable Michael O. Miller, Judge.
West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC By Anne Elsberry Tucson Attorneys for Appellant.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge.
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Anthony Flores was convicted of second-degree burglary and misdemeanor theft, committed in March 2012. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentences and placed Flores on concurrent, three-year terms of probation. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no arguable, meritorious issues to raise on appeal. She asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Flores has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). In summary, Tucson police officers responded to notification of a burglary in progress and found Flores near the apartment that had been burglarized. After he was advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda,  Flores identified the vehicle he had been driving, and property taken during the burglary was found in that vehicle.
¶3 We conclude substantial evidence supported Flores's convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1507, 13-1802, and the dispositions were authorized by law, see A.R.S. § 13-902(A). In our examination of the record, we have found no fundamental or reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 ...