Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0049
07-25-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOHN JOSEPH BERGEN, Appellant.
COUNSEL West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC, Tucson By Anne Elsberry Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20152813001
The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC, Tucson
By Anne Elsberry
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Kelly concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. --------
¶1 After a jury trial, John Bergen was convicted of fraudulent scheme and artifice. The trial court sentenced him to a four-year prison term.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting she had reviewed the record but found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asked this court to search the record for error.
¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports it here. In September 2014, Bergen obtained goods and services from three victims using six checks for which his account lacked sufficient funds to pay and ignored subsequent demands for payment. A.R.S. § 13-2310(A). And sufficient evidence supports the trial court's finding that Bergen had one previous felony conviction. His sentence is within the statutory range and was properly imposed. §§ A.R.S. 13-703(A), (H), 13-2310(A).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (stating Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Bergen's conviction and sentence.