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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DAVID MICHAEL JENNINGS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0219 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-127956-001

The Honorable Joseph P. Mikitish, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jesse Finn Turner

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-19-2020
STATE v. JENNINGS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

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

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 451 (1969). Counsel for defendant David Michael 

Jennings has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, no 

arguable questions of law have been identified, and filed a brief asking this 

court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Jennings was allowed to

file a supplemental brief pro se, but has not done so. This court has 

reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Thus, Jennings’

conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 One day in early June 2018, D.F. arrived at a Phoenix rental 

home his employer was renovating. Using a key retrieved from a lockbox, 

D.F. entered the front door of the home and “heard somebody walking off 

to [his] left.” D.F. took out his gun and walked around the corner. D.F. saw 

a man standing inside the home, later identified as Jennings. D.F. told

Jennings to get on the ground and called the police. When officers arrived, 

Jennings tried to escape through the garage but was captured and arrested. 

¶3 The State charged Jennings with one count of criminal 

trespass in the first degree, a Class 6 felony. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) §§ 

13-1501, -1504(A)(1), -1504(B) (2020).

2 Although released on his own 

recognizance, Jennings failed to appear at various hearings and was taken

into custody pursuant to bench warrants. 

1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” 

State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588–89 (1997) (citation omitted). 

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. 
STATE v. JENNINGS

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 At a three-day trial in February 2019, the jury heard testimony 

from D.F. as well as the owner of the property and two arresting officers. 

After the State rested, Jennings moved for a judgment of acquittal, which 

was denied. The jury later found Jennings guilty as charged. 

¶5 At sentencing, the State proved Jennings had four prior felony 

convictions, two of which were historical prior felony convictions. See 

A.R.S. § 13-105(22)(d). Having considered both the aggravating and 

mitigating factors, the court sentenced Jennings to three years in prison, a 

less than presumptive term, with 179 days of presentence incarceration 

credit. This court has jurisdiction over Jennings’ timely appeal pursuant to

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

DISCUSSION

¶6 The court has reviewed and considered counsels’ brief and 

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 no arguable issues to appeal). Searching the record

and briefs reveals no reversible error. The record shows Jennings was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and counsel was 

present at all critical stages. From the record, all proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The sentence imposed was within the statutory limit. Neither counsel nor 

Jennings raised any issues on appeal. 
STATE v. JENNINGS

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶7 This court has read and considered counsels’ brief and has 

searched the record provided for reversible error. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; 

Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 30. From the court’s review, the record reveals no 

reversible error. Accordingly, Jennings’ conviction and resulting sentence 

are affirmed. 

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

inform Jennings 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, 585 (1984). Jennings 

has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a 

pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.