Not for Publication – Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-154410-001 The Honorable Cynthia Bailey, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee
Droban & Company, PC, Anthem By Kerrie M. Droban Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
¶1 Anthony J. Hernandez ("Defendant") appeals from his convictions and sentences for three counts of trafficking in stolen goods, all class 3 felonies. Defendant's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief in propria persona raising various issues that we address below.
¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review "the entire record for reversible error." State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History []
¶3 On October 12, 2011, Cox Communications received an alarm indicating that the power to its back-up batteries had been cut at a certain location. The back-up batteries are specialized gel cell batteries used by Cox to keep its systems powered in case of a power outage; they are crucial to the continued operation of internet, telephone, and video service systems. Cox uses two specific brands of commercial grade batteries to back up its systems. The batteries are worth about $500 to $600 retail.
¶4 Shortly after being notified of the alarm, Robert Jackson, Cox's criminal investigator, received a call from Carrillo's Recycle and Auto Parts ("Carrillo's"). Jackson was familiar with Carrillo's because the salvage yard had received Cox's stolen property in the past. Jackson went to Carrillo's and identified three gel cell batteries Carrillo's had just purchased as the stolen property of Cox. An employee at the salvage yard gave Jackson the receipt for the transaction and showed Jackson surveillance video footage of the sale. The receipt listed Defendant's name, address, and driver's license number; and the video showed Defendant removing the batteries from his vehicle and selling them to the employee.
¶5 On October 15, Cox's alarm was activated again. Jackson first went to the battery location and noted that the batteries had been removed and there was evidence of theft; a short time later, Jackson received a call from Carrillo's indicating that Defendant had come by to sell similar gel cell batteries. Carrillo's again provided Jackson with the receipt from the transaction showing Defendant's identifying information. An employee had written down the license plate number of the car Defendant was driving when he sold the batteries; Jackson traced the registration to Defendant.
¶6 On October 20, another set of Cox's back-up batteries were stolen. One of these batteries was equipped with a GPS tracking unit. GPS revealed that the battery traveled first to Defendant's house, then to Carrillo's. When Jackson went to Carrillo's he was given the receipt showing Defendant's name, address, and license plate number; and surveillance video showing Defendant unloading the batteries and selling them.
¶7 Police arrested Defendant on October 20. Defendant told police that he sold the batteries to Carrillo's and that he had an idea that they were stolen. Defendant was charged with three counts of trafficking in stolen property, all class three felonies. After a jury trial, he was convicted on all three counts and sentenced to ...