You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


                     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.




                                    IN THE
             ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
                                DIVISION ONE


                       STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

                                        v.

                MICHAEL ANTHONY GARCIA, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 18-0386
                                FILED 6-25-2019


           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                        No. CR2015-125585-001
                 The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED


                                   COUNSEL

The Poster Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Glendale
By Rick D. Poster
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
                            STATE v. GARCIA
                           Decision of the Court



                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Acting
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann
joined.


J O N E S, Judge:

¶1           Michael Garcia appeals from his convictions and sentences
for one count each of trafficking in stolen property and theft. For the
following reasons, we affirm.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             In October 2014, Garcia began living with the victim.1 At the
time, the victim owned a personal computer she had purchased for
$2,182.18. The same day Garcia moved out of the victim’s home, May 9,
2015, the victim discovered the computer was gone.

¶3           On May 20, 2015, Garcia took the computer to a pawn shop.
In exchange for the computer and accessories, Garcia received a three-
month “loan” of $400. According to the terms of the agreement, if Garcia
did not repay the $400, plus a $96.50 finance charge, in ninety days, the
pawn shop could sell the items.

¶4           In June 2015, after being advised of his rights pursuant to
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Garcia admitted he had pawned the
computer, which he did not own. At the time of the offense, Garcia was on
felony probation for an unrelated crime he committed in 2011.

¶5            The jury convicted Garcia of trafficking in stolen property and
theft of property valued at least $1,000 but less than $2,000. At the
sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked Garcia’s probation, sentenced
him to a mitigated term of 1.5 years’ imprisonment for the 2011 offense, and


1      “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.”
State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404, ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v.
Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)).



                                     2
                             STATE v. GARCIA
                            Decision of the Court

credited him with 291 days of presentence incarceration. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
(A.R.S.) § 13-708(E)2 (stating that imposition of a sentence for an offense
committed while the defendant is on probation “shall revoke the convicted
person’s release”). The court then sentenced Garcia to the presumptive
terms of 11.25 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in stolen property and
3.75 years’ imprisonment for theft, with these sentences to be served
concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentence imposed on the
2011 offense. Garcia timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

I.     Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶6            Garcia argues the State failed to prove he intended to
permanently deprive the victim of the computer and therefore there is
insufficient evidence to support his convictions. When evaluating the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we determine de novo
“whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Montaño, 204 Ariz. 413, 423,
¶ 43 (2003) (quoting State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552 (1981)).

¶7             A person commits theft when “without lawful authority, the
person knowingly . . . [c]ontrols property of another with the intent to
deprive the other person of such property.” A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1).
“Deprive” is defined by statute, in relevant part, as “to withhold [property]
. . . with the intent to restore it only on payment of any reward or other
compensation or to transfer or dispose of it so that it is unlikely to be
recovered.” A.R.S. § 13-1801(A)(4). Moreover, Arizona courts have held
that “[t]he wrongful taking of another’s property without an apparent
purpose to return it and without [satisfactory] explanation evidences an
intent to permanently deprive.” State v. Ramirez, 115 Ariz. 70, 75 (App.
1977) (citation omitted); see also State v. Jackson, 101 Ariz. 399, 402 (1966)
(“The trial judge, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, not only could
have disregarded appellant’s testimony, but also could have inferred from
its unsatisfactory nature, that there was no apparent intent to return the
automobile.”) (collecting cases).

¶8           Substantial evidence supports the verdict here. Although
Garcia argues the prosecution was not “ripe” because the ninety-day loan


2     Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s
current version.


                                      3
                             STATE v. GARCIA
                            Decision of the Court

period during which the property could be redeemed had yet to pass, the
crime of theft “does not require permanent deprivation.” Maricopa Cty. Juv.
Action No. J-98065, 141 Ariz. 404, 406 (App. 1984); see also A.R.S. § 13-
1801(A)(4) (defining “deprive”). The record reflects Garcia knew the
computer belonged to someone else when he “loaned” it to the pawn shop
and that it would not be returned unless and until $496.50 was paid before
the ninety days expired. From these circumstances, a reasonable juror
could find Garcia had “no apparent purpose to return” the computer to the
victim or, alternatively, disposed of it such that it was unlikely to be
recovered.      Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports the jury’s
determination that Garcia intended to deprive the victim of the computer,
and we find no error in his convictions.

II.    Presentence Incarceration Credit

¶9            Garcia argues the trial court violated his right to due process
when it erroneously applied his presentence incarceration credit. Whether
a defendant is entitled to presentence incarceration credit presents a
question of law subject to de novo review. State v. Lambright, 243 Ariz. 244,
249, ¶ 9 (App. 2017) (citing State v. Bomar, 199 Ariz. 472, 475, ¶ 5 (App.
2001)).

¶10            Generally, “[a] sentence of imprisonment commences when
sentence is imposed.” A.R.S. § 13-712(A). However, a person is entitled to
credit against a term of imprisonment for “[a]ll time actually spent in
custody pursuant to an offense until the prisoner is sentenced to
imprisonment for such offense.” A.R.S. § 13-712(B). The credit for Arizona
jail time applies to the defendant’s total sentence. State v. McClure, 189 Ariz.
55, 57 (App. 1997) (citing United States v. VonWillie, 59 F.3d 922, 930 (1995)).
Thus, “[w]hen consecutive sentences are imposed, a defendant is not
entitled to presentence incarceration credit on more than one of those
sentences, even if the defendant was in custody pursuant to all of the
underlying charges prior to trial.” Id. (citing State v. Cuen, 158 Ariz. 86, 88
(App. 1988), and State v. Jackson, 170 Ariz. 89, 94 (App. 1991)).

¶11           Garcia complains that he did not receive presentence
incarceration credit for 101 days he spent in custody between October 12
and November 29, 2016 and April 11 and June 1, 2018. The record reflects,
however, that the trial court included these days within the 291 days of
presentence incarceration credit Garcia received against his sentence for the
2011 offense. He is not entitled to credit for those same days against his
consecutive sentences for the trafficking and theft offenses, and we find no
error.


                                       4
                    STATE v. GARCIA
                   Decision of the Court

                      CONCLUSION

¶12   Garcia’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.




                   AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                   FILED:    JT

                               5