Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0019
08-30-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. THERESA ALICE TITUS, Appellant.
COUNSEL Law Office of Daniel DeRienzo P.L.L.C., Prescott By Daniel J. DeRienzo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County
No. CR201600596
The Honorable James L. Conlogue, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Law Office of Daniel DeRienzo P.L.L.C., Prescott
By Daniel J. DeRienzo
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eppich concurred. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, Theresa Titus was convicted of fraudulent scheme and artifice, theft from a vulnerable adult and two counts of forgery. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed her on supervised probation for concurrent terms, the longest of which is seven years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no "error or arguable questions of law." Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, he has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asked this court to search the record for reversible error. Titus has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1802(B), (G), 13-2002(A)(3), (C), 13-2310(A). The "severely impaired" victim suffered from a neurocognitive disorder. On June 20, 2016, Titus, who was a joint owner of the victim's account at the Cochise Credit Union, went to the credit union with a $15,000 check written on the victim's account and made out to Titus, and attempted to withdraw $9,900 in cash. The check was signed with the victim's name in handwriting that did not "quite look like" the victim's signature on record with the credit union. Titus was permitted to withdraw $2,000 that day, $7,900 the following day, and $5,100 on June 23. On June 24, 2016, Titus cashed an additional check for $9,900, also written on the victim's account and made out to Titus, and also bearing the victim's signature in handwriting that did not look like her signature on record with the credit union. We further conclude the terms of Titus's probation are authorized by statute and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901, 13-902(A).
We cite the current version of § 13-2310, as it has not changed in relevant part since Titus committed her offenses. See 1993 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 255, § 34; 2018 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 1, § 5.
The operations officer for the credit union testified that the amount of $9,900 is significant because it falls just under the legal mandatory reporting requirement amount.
Although Titus withdrew a total of $24,900, the verdict form says she committed theft in the amount of "$25,000 or more." However, Titus was found guilty of and sentenced for a class three felony offense for theft, which A.R.S. § 13-1802(G) defines as "[t]heft of property . . . with a value of four thousand dollars or more but less than twenty-five thousand dollars." --------
¶3 Although not required to do so, see Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 31, counsel has mentioned a nonmeritorious issue related to the use of impeachment material at trial. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error, including error related to the issue suggested by counsel, and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985) (stating Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Titus's convictions and terms of probation.