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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

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

Counsel for Appellant
STATE 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 entire record, 

he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed 

a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Ray was 

given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. 

FACTS1

¶2 The 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 talked to Ray. During the conversation, which Detective 

Hyer recorded, Ray 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 verifying the ATV’s serial

number, Detective Hyer subsequently arrested Ray.

¶4 Ray was charged with theft of means of transportation, a class 

3 felony, and the State alleged multiple historical felonies. After a jury trial, 

Ray was convicted and sentenced to prison for 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 appeal. 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, and -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, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (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.