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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA

, Appellee

,

v.

TYRONE THORPE RAY

, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 14

- 0347

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013

- 434126

- 001 The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia

, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office

, Phoenix By Spencer D. Heffel C ounsel for AppellantSTATE v. RAY
Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

P O R T 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, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Tyrone Thorpe Ray has advised us that, after searching the entir e record, h e has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders re view of the record. Ray was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so.

FACTS 1

¶2 T he Mesa police department , as part of an undercover operation, parked a Yamaha Raptor ATV with a “ for sale ” sign , at the southeast corner of 78th Street and Southern Avenue

. The police also installed a tracking device on the ATV.

¶3 About one week later, the tracking device notified the police that the ATV had been moved into Ray’s backyard

. Detective Hyer went to Ray’s house and talk ed to Ray. During the conversation, which Detective
H y e r recorded, R ay acknowledged that the ATV was in his backyard , but he said that he was going to take it back

. Ray allowed Detective Hyer to go in the backyard to retrieve the ATV, and after the verif ying the ATV’s serial number, Detective Hyer subsequently arrested Ray.

¶4 Ray was charged with t heft of m eans of t ransportation, a class 3 felony, and the State alleged multiple historical felonies. After a jury trial, Ray was convicted and sentenced to pr ison f o r a mitigated term of four

years , with fifty

- one days of presentence incarceration credit

.

1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict

, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. ” State v. Rienhardt , 190 Ariz. 579, 588

- 89 , 951 P.2d 454, 463

- 64 (1997)

.STATE v. RAY
Decision of the Court

3 ¶5 Ray filed an a ppeal

. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12

- 120.21(A)(1), 13

- 4031, a nd

- 4033(A)(1)

. 2

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have read and considered the opening brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ray was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. And his mitigated sentence was within the statutory limits.

¶7 After this decision is filed, counsel ’s obligation to represent Ray in this appeal has ended. Counsel need only inform Ray of the status of the appeal and Ray ’s future options, unless counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for
review. State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 5 84

- 85, 684 P.2d 154, 15 6

- 5 7 (1984). Ray may , if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

CONCLUSION

¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Ray ’s conviction and sentence

.

2 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes absent changes material to this decision.