Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Division One
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2010-160894-001 The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender, Phoenix By Terry J. Reid Counsel for Appellant
Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
¶1 Shawn English ("English") filed this appeal in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), following her conviction of taking the identity of another, a class 4 felony, under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-2008 (2010). Finding no arguable issues to raise, English's counsel requested that this Court search the record for fundamental error. English was given the opportunity to, but did not file a pro per supplemental brief. For the following reasons, we affirm English's conviction and sentence.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 "M.C., " a JC Penney loss prevention officer, observed English trying on sunglasses over store surveillance cameras. M.C. watched English remove the sales sticker from the glasses, put them on her head, and walk out of the store without paying for them. M.C. stopped English outside and brought her inside to the loss prevention office, at which point English falsely identified herself as "S.D." M.C. then called the police pursuant to store policy.
¶3 Phoenix Police Officer "H." responded to the call and found English in the loss prevention office. There is no evidence in the record indicating that English received any Miranda warnings prior to speaking with Officer H. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). English told Officer H. that her name was S.D. and that she had inadvertently left the store with the sunglasses on her head. Officer H. testified that he searched English's purse incident to her arrest and found various identification cards bearing the name S.D. Officer H. wrote up a shoplifting citation, and English signed it using the name S.D.
¶4 English knew S.D. personally because they had worked together. As the office manager, English had handled employee matters and had access to S.D.'s personal information. English and S.D. were also friends, and English had met with S.D. after the shoplifting incident and complained about the citation, not mentioning that she had identified herself as S.D. S.D. was not at JC Penney on the day of the shoplifting citation, and had never given English permission to use her identity for any purpose.
¶5 S.D. received a demand letter from JC Penney a few weeks later in relation to the shoplifting incident. Because English had complained about the citation, S.D. suspected that English had used her identity. Consequently, S.D. called the police to report the letter. Officer "K." investigated the identity theft, and showed a photo lineup to Officer H. that included English. Officer H. identified English as the person he cited for shoplifting at JC Penney and who had identified herself as S.D.
¶6 English was indicted for shoplifting and taking the identity of another. A jury found English not guilty of shoplifting, but guilty of taking the identity of another. The trial court sentenced English to twelve months' probation with applicable fees.
¶7 English timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), ...