Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0453
06-02-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDWARD JOHN ORTA, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Terry J. Adams Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2012-131168-001
The Honorable Virginia L. Richter, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Terry J. Adams
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Donn Kessler joined. CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Edward John Orta appeals his convictions of theft of means of transportation and possession of burglary tools, and the resulting sentences. Orta's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, counsel found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Orta was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Orta's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 On the evening of June 11, 2012, the Phoenix Police Department received a LoJack signal indicating that a stolen vehicle was in the area. A police helicopter followed the signal to an area in South Phoenix and found a white pick-up truck matching the description of the stolen vehicle driving southbound. When illuminated by the helicopter's spotlight, the truck immediately pulled over and stopped, and the driver, later identified as Orta, got out of the vehicle and began walking away.
¶3 Within moments, a patrol officer stopped Orta, who was carrying a flathead screwdriver and the stolen truck's registration documents. An officer read Orta his Miranda rights, and Orta agreed to speak with the officers. Orta stated that another person had paid him to drive the truck from one place to another, and that this third-party had given him the screwdriver to use in the truck's ignition. When asked whether the truck's broken back window and cracked ignition (so the truck would start with the screwdriver instead of a key) seemed normal, Orta acknowledged that "all signs pointed to it being stolen." The truck's owner confirmed that Orta did not have permission to drive the vehicle.
384 U.S. 436 (1966).
¶4 Orta was charged with theft of means of transportation and possession of burglary tools. After Orta posted bond, he failed to appear for trial, which went forward in his absence. The jury found Orta guilty as charged, and Orta's counsel stipulated that Orta had been on release from confinement at the time of the offenses.
¶5 Orta was later apprehended. Before sentencing, he admitted to having two prior felony convictions, and the court sentenced him to concurrent, slightly aggravated terms of imprisonment, the greater of which is 12 years, with credit for 249 days of presentence incarceration.
Although the sentencing minute entry erroneously states that Orta was sentenced to a four-year presumptive term for possession of burglary tools, the court's oral pronouncement of sentence appropriately acknowledged that the four-year term was slightly aggravated. See A.R.S. § 13-703(J); State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, 188, ¶ 38, 291 P.3d 974, 982 (2013) (stating that oral pronouncement of sentence controls over discrepancy in written minute entry).
¶6 Orta timely appealed after the superior court granted his request under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(f) to file a delayed notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033.
Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.
--------
DISCUSSION
¶7 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none.
¶8 Orta was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. Although Orta was not present at trial, the record reflects that he was informed of his right to be present and warned that the proceedings would go forward in his absence should he fail to appear, and Orta has not claimed that his absence was involuntary. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1; State v. Reed, 196 Ariz. 37, 39, ¶ 3, 992 P.2d 1132, 1134 (App. 1999). The record reflects that the superior court afforded Orta all his rights under the United States and Arizona Constitutions and our statutes, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts. Orta's sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Orta's representation in this appeal will end after informing Orta of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Orta shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶10 Orta's convictions and sentences are affirmed.