Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 2012-009543-001 The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Jr., Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Andrew Reilly Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Joel M. Glynn, Tara R. DeGeorge Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Maurice Portley joined.
¶1 Christopher Robin Ryan appeals his conviction for burglary in the third degree. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Phoenix police officers responded to a call about the theft of a clothes dryer from an apartment complex. The dryer was taken from a laundry nook - a small recess in the side of one of the apartment buildings - just large enough to hold the dryer, a washer, and a water heater. Although the nook had doors at some point in the past, none were present on the day in question.
¶3 Ryan was indicted for burglary in the third degree. At trial, Officer Ho testified that he met with K.N., the apartment complex owner, and then located the dryer in a grocery cart about a block away, with Ryan sleeping nearby. After Officer Ho awakened Ryan to ask how he acquired the dryer, Ryan motioned to K.N. and replied, "[I] got it from this guy, Tylaw. That's Tylaw right there." K.N. testified "Tylaw" is not his name, nor the name of anyone he knows. Later, at the police station, Ryan stated that maintenance men named Steve and Robert gave him permission to take the dryer. K.N., however, testified he performed all maintenance at the complex and had not hired anyone, let alone someone named Steve or Robert.
¶4 Ryan made a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 at the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief. He argued the State had failed to establish that the laundry nook was a structure under the relevant statute because it was not "separately securable." The trial court denied the motion.
¶5 The jury found Ryan guilty of burglary in the third degree in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-1506. The jury also found that Ryan was on probation at the time of the offense for possession of drug paraphernalia. In addition to the conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, at sentencing, the court determined Ryan was previously convicted of attempted theft of a credit card or obtaining a credit card by fraudulent means and sentenced him to the presumptive term of ten years' imprisonment.
¶6 Ryan timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ ...