Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0122
11-06-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. THOMAS L. PEEK, Appellant.
COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Gila County
No. S0400CR20160003
The Honorable Bryan B. Chambers, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Espinosa concurred.
BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Peek was convicted of theft of a means of transportation. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Peek on a two-year term of probation.
¶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 has 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 has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks this court to search the record for error. Peek has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewed 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), the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict here, see A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5). In October 2015, Peek entered an office in an automobile dealership where vehicle keys were stored and, that evening, a vehicle was driven from the lot. Dealership employees determined that the key for the missing vehicle had been taken from that office. The car was found two days later in Peek's possession with no license plate or paper tags. Peek claimed to have purchased the car for $5,000 at a convenience store from a person named "Jose." The terms of his probation are authorized by statute and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(A), (B), 13-902(A)(2), 13-1814(D).
¶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 Peek's conviction and term of probation.