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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SHAWN JAMES BRUNSON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0429

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-446778-001

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 Christopher V. Johns

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BRUNSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel 

for Shawn Brunson asks this Court to search the record for fundamental 

error. Brunson was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in

propria persona. He has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm 

Brunson’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

trial court’s judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against 

Brunson. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998).

¶3 A.R. woke up at 3:00 a.m. because her dog was barking.

Finding the barking unusual, she went to find her dog. A.R. looked out her 

front window and saw an unfamiliar truck parked in front of her house,

next to her landscaper’s storage trailer. After she saw movement in the 

truck, A.R. woke her husband and called “crime stop,” a non-emergency 

police number. 

¶4 A.R. described to the operator the events as they were 

unfolding. A man—later identified as Brunson—emerged from the truck 

with a saw and used it to pry the trailer’s lock. But he was unsuccessful.

Brunson then walked around the trailer, looking at its hitch and front side. 

Afterwards, he rummaged around his truck and grabbed a crowbar. He 

pried the lock again, but was also unsuccessful. Brunson returned to the 

truck and sat inside. The police soon arrived and arrested him. 

¶5 Brunson was charged with one count of attempted burglary 

in the third degree and one count of possession of burglary tools. The State

alleged that he had five prior felony convictions. At trial, the court ruled

that the State could use a sanitized version of Brunson’s most recent prior 

conviction for impeachment purposes. A.R. and her husband testified to the 

events of that night. Both made in-court identifications of Brunson. A.R.’s 
STATE v. BRUNSON

Decision of the Court

3

landscaper testified that the trailer was his and that the police called him 

the night in question to come examine the trailer. The court also admitted a 

recording of A.R.’s crime stop call. 

¶6 In his defense, Brunson testified that he was having car 

problems that night. As he was traveling west on Bethany Home Road, the 

truck “started like it was running out of gas,” “kind of chugging along.”

Fearing that the truck was dying, Brunson turned left onto Third Avenue 

to look for a gas station. After he made a right turn, his truck died in front 

of A.R.’s house. In the past, the truck would start again after a few minutes, 

so Brunson decided to take a nap. At one point, he had to urinate, so he 

looked around his truck for a bottle, found nothing, and ultimately urinated

by the trailer. Brunson admitted that he had been convicted of a felony in 

2005. The jurors found him guilty as charged. 

¶7 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in 

compliance with Brunson’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 26. Brunson knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently 

admitted—and the court found—that he had five prior felony convictions. 

The court also found four mitigating factors. For the attempted burglary

conviction, the court sentenced Brunson to 3 years’ imprisonment to run 

concurrent with 2.5 years’ imprisonment for the possession of burglary 

tools conviction. Both the imprisonment terms were less than the 

presumptive for an individual with prior felony convictions, and both 

included 27 days credit.

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review Brunson’s convictions and sentences for 

fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 

(1991).

¶9 Counsel for Brunson has advised this Court that after a 

diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of 

law. We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the 

record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We 

find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

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

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

sentences imposed was within the statutory limits. We decline to order 

briefing and we affirm Brunson’s convictions and sentences.

¶10 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Brunson of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense 
STATE v. BRUNSON

Decision of the Court

4

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, 684 P.2d 154, 156–57 

(1984). Brunson shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for 

review. 

CONCLUSION

¶11 We affirm Brunson’s convictions and sentences.