Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2013-004768-001 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey L. Force Counsel for Appellant.
Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
¶1 Brian Jamel Matthews appeals his conviction for one count of theft, a class one misdemeanor, and the resulting sentence. Matthews's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), indicating he has searched the entire record on appeal and has found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, and has requested this court review the entire record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Matthews was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but did not do so.
¶2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21.A.1 and 13-4031 and -4033.A. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3 In September 2013, I.J., the victim, encountered Matthews near a pawn shop where I.J. had gone to reclaim his laptop. I.J. invited Matthews to come to his apartment because Matthews said his phone was dead and needed a charge. While at the apartment, I.J. let Matthews take a shower and shave in his bathroom. I.J. also let Matthews use his laptop to play games. Matthews stayed in I.J.'s apartment for about three hours and left around 4:00 p.m.
¶4 I.J. went to work around 9:30 p.m. that day. He returned home around 3:00 a.m. and found the bathroom window open, footprints in the bathtub, and his laptop, debit card, brother's cell phone, motor scooter, backpack, lamp, and a case of CDs missing. He called the police and they came to his apartment. I.J. told the police that he suspected it was Matthews who had broken into his apartment.
¶5 Approximately one month later, police came into contact with Matthews, who had a laptop, cell phone, and backpack on his person. During the search of the laptop, police discovered I.J.'s W-2. Based on the information in the W-2, police ran I.J.'s name through the police database and discovered I.J. had been the victim of a residential burglary. Although officers took photos of the seized items, they did not take a picture of I.J.'s W-2 before they returned the laptop to him.
¶6 The police called I.J. to the station and he identified the items as his property. I.J. did not recall if he powered up the laptop at the station or at home, but when he did, he recognized his W-2, some pictures and music. Although I.J. initially reported that the stolen laptop was a Dell, the laptop was actually a Hewlett-Packard. I.J. also noticed new items saved on the laptop including pictures, music and a different screen saver. At least one of those pictures was of Matthews. I.J. was shown a photo lineup and asked if he recognized anyone as the person who he believed stole his property, and I.J. identified Matthews, saying he was "a hundred percent sure" it was Matthews.
¶7 Matthews was charged with one count of burglary in the second degree, a class three felony, and one count of theft, a class one misdemeanor. The trial court held evidentiary hearings on Matthews's motion to ...