NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, 

Appellee,

v.

LENNIE THOMAS, 

Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0045

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2013-030204-001

The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, Commissioner

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Terry J. Adams

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. THOMAS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

O R O Z C O, Judge:

¶1 Lennie Thomas (Defendant) appeals his conviction and 

sentence for burglary in the third degree, a class four felony, with two prior 

historical felony convictions. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), Defendant’s counsel has filed 

a brief indicating he searched the entire record, found no arguable question 

of law, and asked this court to review the record for fundamental error. 

Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria 

persona, but did not. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Late in the evening, Officer Tunis of the Mesa Police 

Department responded to a burglary alarm call at a business complex. 

While patrolling near the burglarized building, Officer Tunis observed 

Defendant standing alone at a well-lit bus stop at a time the buses do not 

run. Officer Tunis testified Defendant’s all black attire, black backpack, and 

black sun glasses caught his attention. After questioning Defendant at the 

bus stop, Officer Tunis arrested Defendant and took him in for booking. 

¶3 Officer Tunis then returned to the burglary scene to resume 

canvasing of the area for other suspicious persons, vehicles, or evidence. 

Inside the ransacked building Officer Tunis discovered a shoe print on a 

large desk calendar and broken glass at the front door.

¶4 Later, Officer Tunis visited Defendant in the holding facility. 

Defendant was lying in his cell with his feet towards the door. Officer Tunis 

noticed the size of Defendant’s shoe was similar to the print found at the 

scene. After taking the shoes away from Defendant, Officer Tunis 

perceived a fresh shard of glass embedded in the bottom of the shoes and

lacerations in the rubber soles. 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial 

court’s verdict. State v. Flores, 201 Ariz. 239, 240 ¶ 2, 33 (App. 2001).
STATE v. THOMAS

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Rebecca Winger, crime scene specialist, photographed 

damage to the door and collected small pinkish/red rubber pieces in the 

broken glass around the door. Ms. Winger opined that Defendant’s shoes 

had a pinkish/red colored rubber in the detail of the sole similar to the

rubber found at the crime scene. Similarly, Officer Tunis testified that the 

sole of Defendant’s shoe matched the shoe print found at the scene. 

¶6 The jury found Defendant guilty of burglary in the third 

degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant to ten years’ imprisonment 

with credit for 3912 days of presentence incarceration. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona 

Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12-120.21.A.1 (West 2016).

3 Finding no 

reversible error, we affirm. 

DISCUSSION

¶7 When evidence is challenged on appeal, it is viewed “in the 

light most favorable to sustaining the conviction.” State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 

546, 552 (1981). All reasonable inferences are resolved against Defendant. 

Id. A reversal of a conviction based on insufficiency of evidence requires a 

clear showing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

conclusion under any hypothesis whatsoever. State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 

228, 231, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).

¶8 Under A.R.S. § 13-1506.A.1,“[a] person commits burglary in 

the third degree by . . . [e]ntering or remaining unlawfully in or on a 

nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with 

the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.” Evidence of an 

unauthorized entry made by force is sufficient to form the requisite intent. 

State v. Malloy, 131 Ariz. 126, 130 (1981). The State presented sufficient 

evidence at trial to support the jury’s verdict. Defendant’s location near the 

break in, attire, the shards of glass in the sole of his shoe, remnants of red 

shoe rubber at the point of entry, and the shoe print match provided 

sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. 

 

2 The record on appeal is devoid of sufficient evidence to confirm that 

the court properly calculated Defendant’s presentence incarceration credit, 

so we do not address it.

3 We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions 

material to this decision have since occurred.
STATE v. THOMAS

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Defendant admitted to four prior felony convictions, two of 

which are historical priors as defined under A.R.S. § 13-105.D. Defendant’s 

presumptive sentence was ten years with a maximum aggravated term of 

fifteen years. A.R.S. 13-703.J. Defendant’s sentence was within the 

permitted range. The trial court credited Defendant with 391 days of 

presentence incarceration. Because the jury properly found Defendant 

guilty under A.R.S. § 13-105, the sentence was legal. 

CONCLUSION 

¶10 We have read and considered counsel’s brief. We have 

carefully searched the entire appellate record for reversible error and have 

found none. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 541, ¶ 49 (App. 1999). All of 

the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. We find substantial evidence supported the jury’s 

guilty verdict. Defendant was represented by counsel at all critical stages 

of the proceedings. At sentencing, Defendant and his counsel were given 

an opportunity to speak and the court imposed a legal sentence. For the 

foregoing reasons, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

¶11 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Defendant’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584 (1984). Counsel need do nothing more than inform Defendant of the 

status of the 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 Id. at 585. Defendant has thirty days from the date 

of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona 

motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s conviction and 

sentence is affirmed.