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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

DESMOND KWAME MENYONGARI, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0172 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2019-121166-001 

The Honorable Frank W. Moskowitz, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Joel M. Glynn

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-9-2021
STATE v. MENYONGARI

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Desmond 

Kwame Menyongari filed a brief advising the court that, after searching the 

entire record, he is unable to discover any arguable question of law and 

requesting that this court conduct an Anders review of the record. 

Menyongari was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se, 

but has not done so. For reasons that follow, we affirm Menyongari’s 

convictions and resulting sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In May 2019, D.K.1 lost his wallet while bicycling in Mesa. 

D.K. cancelled all of his credit cards, except for his Chase bank debit card.

¶3 The next morning, D.K. received an alert from Chase that his 

debit card had been used at a Safeway to make two purchases, totaling 

about $700. Later that day, Mesa Police lawfully detained Menyongari. 

During a search incident to arrest, officers found six Visa gift cards in his 

pocket along with D.K.’s Arizona driver’s license, game and fish card, and 

Chase debit card. Officers also found two Safeway receipts for the gift card

purchases. 

¶4 The State indicted Menyongari for taking the identity of 

another, a Class 4 felony and theft of a credit card or obtaining a credit card 

by fraudulent means, a Class 5 felony. Following Menyongari’s 

arraignment, he moved for a competency hearing pursuant to Arizona Rule 

of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 11. After experts examined Menyongari, 

the trial court found him competent to stand trial.

1 “Initials are used to protect the victim’s privacy.” State v. Maldonado, 206 

Ariz. 339, 341, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2003). 
STATE v. MENYONGARI

Decision of the Court

3 

¶5 At the close of the State’s case, Menyongari moved for 

acquittal pursuant to Rule 20. The court denied the motion. The jury found 

him guilty of both counts. The jury further found Menyongari committed 

the offenses while on release in another matter. The court sentenced 

Menyongari as a category-two repetitive offender to concurrent prison 

terms of 4.25 years on count one and 3 years on count two.

¶6 We have jurisdiction over Menyongari’s timely appeal 

pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. 

§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033. 

DISCUSSION

¶7 The court has reviewed and considered counsel’s brief. The 

court has searched the entire record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 

196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1990) (providing guidelines for briefs when 

counsel has determined there are no arguable issues to appeal). Searching 

the record and reviewing the briefs reveals no reversible error. The record 

shows Menyongari was represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceeding and counsel was present at all critical stages. All proceedings 

were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limit. 

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm Menyongari’s convictions and resulting sentences. 

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Menyongari of the status of his appeal and of his future options. 

Defense counsel has no further obligations, unless upon review, counsel 

finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by 

petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). 

Menyongari 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.