Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Tristan

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

December 10, 2013


Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR-2011-122778-003 The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Judge

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Terry J. Reid Counsel for Appellant

Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.



¶1 Defendant Amanda Jeanne Tristan appeals her convictions and sentences for burglary in the second degree, a class 3 felony, and theft, a class 1 misdemeanor. 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). Defendant's appellate counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable, nonfrivolous question of law, and asks us to review the record for fundamental error. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so.

¶2 We have searched the record for fundamental error and find none. Accordingly, we affirm.


¶3A realtor, M.E., and her significant other, B.L., went to check on one of M.E.'s listings because a pool-service employee had reportedly seen someone in the house a couple of days earlier. B.L. searched every room of the vacant house while M.E. waited outside and downstairs. When B.L. opened a walk-in closet in an upstairs bedroom, he found Defendant and Keith Bouquot sitting on the ground behind the door. Both Defendant and Bouquot were fully clothed and neither appeared to be holding anything. B.L. yelled at them to leave and escorted them outside without resistance. Defendant told B.L. that she had been in the house with Bouquot because they "just wanted to find a place to be alone for a while." Defendant and Bouquot left on foot after B.L. once again yelled at them to leave.

¶4 B.L. and M.E. thereafter took a closer look at a truck parked in front of the house. The loaded truck bed contained, among other things, a hacksaw, pool-cleaning equipment, and documents M.E. recognized as belonging to another realtor. B.L. noticed that the keys were left in the ignition, and the couple called 9-1-1. Police arrived within minutes and arrested Defendant and Bouquot a few blocks away, whom B.L. and M.E. soon identified during show-ups.

¶5 Police found a purse with Defendant's identification in the truck. The truck search also revealed a makeshift lock-pick, heavy-duty bolt cutters and a handwritten list of addresses spanning several pages and ending with M.E.'s listing. Police confirmed that the pool-cleaning equipment and other items found in the truck bed, valued between $150 and $1, 000, had been stolen from another residence that had been vacant for the preceding six months. Notably, the address of the other residence was written immediately above the address of M.E.'s listing on the list found in the truck.

¶6 Defendant admitted that she had made the address list found in the truck. She knew that the homes on the list were either foreclosed or pre-foreclosed and therefore likely to be vacant. However, she denied intending to take or actually taking anything from the homes and instead claimed that she would visit them during the day "to get away." Defendant insisted that she and Bouquot had entered the house to have sex, and denied taking the pool-cleaning equipment from the other residence. But her demeanor during the ensuing police interrogation changed from "smug" to "flustered" when confronted with the fact that the equipment was stolen from an address on the list she had made. Defendant also admitted to having used the bathroom in the house at one point.

¶7 M.E. testified that Defendant and Bouquot did not have permission to enter the house she had listed for sale. Defendant claimed that they had entered through an unlocked backdoor, but a detective testified that the lock on a bedroom balcony door bore pry marks and that a window in the same bedroom was broken with a partly removed screen. Moreover, B.L. testified that all exterior doors were locked when he and M.E. arrived. A former property-crimes detective ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.