NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 LYNN SHUMAKER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0134

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-163079-001

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

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. SHUMAKER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Samuel A. Thumma 

joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 David Lynn Shumaker (“Defendant”) appeals from 

his convictions and sentences for trafficking in stolen property and 

theft. Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 

P.2d 878 (1969), advising this Court that after a search of the entire 

appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant 

was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and 

did not do so. 

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire 

record for reversible error.” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 

P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History1

¶3 Defendant was living in Mark O.’s (the “victim”) 

house in Arizona when the victim traveled with his family to 

Indiana. The victim allowed Defendant to continue living in the

home while he was out of the state. 

¶4 The victim left some of his personal property in the 

home, including a weed whacker, treadmill, bike, creeper, and 

ladder. Defendant, without the victim’s permission, pawned the 

victim’s ladder and weed whacker, and sold his treadmill, bike, and 

creeper at various yard sales. When the victim returned to Arizona, 

he reported Defendant to the police. The police questioned 

 

1 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 

778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989).
STATE v. SHUMAKER

Decision of the Court

3

Defendant about the missing property, and he confessed to taking 

the items without the victim’s permission and selling them. 

¶5 After Defendant’s arrest, the police obtained some

pawn tickets for the stolen weed whacker and ladder. The pawn 

tickets contained Defendant’s signature and confirmed that he had 

pawned the weed whacker and ladder. 

¶6 Defendant testified at trial, and admitted that he had 

pawned the victim’s weed whacker; however, he claimed the victim 

gave him permission to do so. 

¶7 The jury found Defendant guilty of one count of 

trafficking in stolen property (weed whacker); and one count of 

theft. The jury acquitted Defendant of one count of trafficking in 

stolen property (ladder). As to the trafficking in stolen property 

(weed whacker) conviction, the court sentenced Defendant to three 

and a half years in the Arizona Department of Corrections with 

credit for 104 days’ time served. The court sentenced Defendant to 

ninety days in the Maricopa County Jail for his theft conviction with 

credit for ninety days’ time served. 

Discussion

¶8 We have read and considered counsel’s brief, 

carefully searched the entire record for reversible error and found 

none. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49, 2 P.3d at 100. All of the 

proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules 

of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence supported the 

finding of guilt. Defendant was present and represented by counsel 

at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing, Defendant 

and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak and the court 

imposed a legal sentence.
STATE v. SHUMAKER

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Defendant’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing 

more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and his 

future options, unless counsel’s review reveals 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). 

Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.