Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2011-008284-001 The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix By Cynthia D. Beck Counsel for Appellant
Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
¶1 Donald Vineyard timely appeals from a restitution order issued by the superior court. Defense counsel has searched the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review the record for reversible error. See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339, 857 P.2d 388, 391 (App. 1993). Vineyard was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Vineyard was convicted of burglary in the third degree, a class 4 felony, and possession of burglary tools, a class 6 felony. The superior court placed him on three years' probation for each count, to be served concurrently. As a condition of probation, Vineyard was sentenced to three months in jail.
¶3 In Vineyard's first appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirmed Vineyard's convictions and sentences. While the first appeal was pending, the superior court issued the restitution order at issue in this appeal.
¶4 At the restitution hearing, the State introduced evidence that victim S.P. required therapy as a result of the burglary. S.P.'s therapist diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the incident. Victim T.P. also attended therapy. The State introduced evidence of the distance traveled by the victims to attend therapy, and Vineyard did not contest the mileage rate used to calculate their travel expenses. Additionally, T.P. testified that they incurred child care expenses while attending therapy. T.P. also missed 72 hours of work due to the burglary. Because he used personal time off ("PTO"), T.P. was compensated for the time missed. However, he lost a corresponding amount of PTO as a result.
¶5 The superior court awarded the victims restitution totaling $10, 861.98. The restitution order included the cost of therapy, travel to therapy, child care, and T.P.'s PTO.
¶6 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(3), and State v. Fancher, 169 Ariz. 266, 266 n.1, 818 P.2d 251, 251 n.1 (App. 1991) ("[T]he order of restitution ...