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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERT MILLER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0255

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-432803-003

The Honorable Virginia L. Richter, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Carlos Daniel Carrion

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. MILLER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Robert Miller appeals his convictions and sentences for one 

count of burglary in the third degree and one count of possession of 

burglary tools. After searching the entire record, Miller’s defense counsel 

has identified no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Therefore, 

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 

104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel asks this Court to search 

the record for fundamental error. Miller was afforded the opportunity to 

file a supplemental brief in propria persona, which he elected not to do. After 

reviewing the record, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Miller’s 

convictions and sentences. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In the early morning of July 13, 2013, police officers 

responded to a report of suspicious activity and found three males standing 

between the back of an open U-Haul truck and a dumpster. Miller told the 

officers he and the other two men, later identified as Jason Martinez and 

Vernon Nelson, were taking metal out of the dumpster. 

¶3 The officers did not observe any metal in the dumpster, which 

contained mostly discarded shingles and other roofing supplies. However, 

inside the U-Haul, the officers observed two metal fence posts that 

appeared to match those missing from the chain-link fence surrounding the 

adjoining property, a pair of bolt cutters, a crowbar, and a bag and toolbox, 

each containing a variety of hand tools. 

 

1 “We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in 

the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts.” State v. Miles, 211 

Ariz. 475, 476, ¶ 2, 123 P.3d 669, 670 (App. 2005). 
STATE v. MILLER

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 Within the adjoining property’s fenced area, officers 

discovered a large air conditioning unit that had been pried open and 

propped up on a dolly. The unit’s exposed copper piping and electrical 

wires had been cut, causing fluid to leak from the unit and pool onto the 

ground. Two additional tool bags were found near the unit and inside the 

fence, one of which contained a bottle of medication prescribed to Vernon 

Nelson. 

¶5 At trial, officers testified that air conditioning units were 

frequently targeted as sources of copper, which can be stripped and sold as 

scrap. Although the tools used to commit a burglary differ based upon the 

target, the officers noted that bolt cutters, wire cutters and crowbars are 

common tools used to strip air conditioning units. Additionally, an officer 

testified that burglars will often cut the power and drain the fluids from an 

air conditioning unit as a safety precaution prior to removing the copper. 

¶6 The owner of the property testified, consistently with the 

reports of the law enforcement officers, that the property was under 

construction and completely surrounded by fencing, with the exception of 

a single gate at the front. The owner further stated he intended to reinstall 

the air conditioning unit, which he described as “essentially new” and in 

good working condition, once the roof repairs were completed. 

Coincidentally, the owner took photographs of the air conditioning unit the 

afternoon prior to this incident that showed the unit was undamaged. The

owner denied knowing Miller, Martinez, or Nelson or giving them 

permission to enter the premises.

¶7 Before the case was submitted to the jury, Miller’s counsel 

made an unsuccessful Rule 20 motion. Thereafter, the jury found Miller 

guilty on both counts. The jury further determined the State had proven 

four aggravating factors: (1) the offense was committed in the presence of 

an accomplice; (2) the offense was committed for pecuniary gain; (3) the 

offense caused financial harm to the victim; and (4) the offense was 

committed while Miller was on community supervision. Miller admitted

having four prior felony convictions, and was sentenced to presumptive 

terms of imprisonment of 10 years for burglary in the third degree and 3.75 

years for possession of burglary tools, with the sentences set to run 

concurrently.
STATE v. MILLER

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶8 After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, we find 

none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Reasonable evidence was 

presented to support the jury’s verdict that Miller unlawfully entered the 

fenced commercial yard with the intent to commit a theft, or aided Nelson 

and/or Martinez in doing so, and that Miller possessed the tools used to 

commit the burglary.

¶9 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Miller

was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Miller did not 

appear for the final pretrial management conference or trial, and does not 

suggest any error in the decision to proceed in absentia. We likewise find 

no error, as Miller was advised of the trial date and warned the State could 

go forward if he failed to appear. See State v. Muniz-Caudillo, 185 Ariz. 261, 

262, 914 P.2d 1353, 1354 (App. 1996) (citing State v. Tudgay, 128 Ariz. 1, 2, 

623 P.2d 360, 361 (1981), and Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1).

¶10 The jury was properly comprised of eight jurors, and the 

record shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-

102(B) (2015); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). At sentencing, Miller was given an 

opportunity to speak, and the trial court stated on the record the evidence 

and materials it considered and the factors it found in imposing sentence. 

The record reflects Miller’s admission to the prior felony convictions was 

knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and in compliance with Arizona Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 17.6. Additionally, the sentence imposed was within 

the statutory limits. 

CONCLUSION

¶11 Miller’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the 

filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Miller’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more 

than inform Miller of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 

unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to 

our supreme court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984).
STATE v. MILLER

Decision of the Court

5

¶12 Miller has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 31.19(a). Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Miller

thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion 

for reconsideration.