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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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.

ARTERIA DAWSON
, Appellant

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0803

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016

- 002153

- 001 The Honorable Michael D. Gordon
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appell ee
Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan P.L.C., Scottsdale By Stephen L. Duncan Counsel for Appellant FILED 4-11-2019STATE v. D AWSON Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Cour t, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

C R U Z , Judge:

¶1 Arteria Dawson (“Dawson”) timely appeals from his convictions and sentences for fraudulent schemes and artifices
, a class two felony, count 1; forgery, a class four felony, counts 2

- 10, and 15 ; theft, a class one misdemeanor, count 12 ; and possession or use of dangerous drugs , a class four felony, count 27

. After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Dawson ’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) , and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) , asking this cour t to search the record for fundamental error. This court granted counsel’s motion to allow Dawson to file a supplemental brief in propria persona , but Dawson did not do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, therefore, a ffirm Dawson ’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict s and resolve all reasonable inferences against Dawson. See State v. Fontes , 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998) (citation omitted).

¶3 Dawson pr esented a fifty

- dollar counterf eit bill at a bar as payment for his six

- dollar drink

. The bartender questioned the authenticity of the fifty

- dollar bill and the police were called ; Dawson was arrested

. ¶4 Dawson’s first tr ial resulted in mistrial due to a hung jury

. During re trial, the State called a bartender as a witness

. The bartender testified that once he determined the fifty

- dollar bill was counterfeit, he followed bar’s policy of provid ing change and alert ing the manager. The bar’s general manager gave corroborating testimony.

¶5 A police officer testified she was the first to arrive at the bar

. The officer testified Dawson originally had no explanation for where he obtained the counterfeit bill and that while Dawson was e scorted to the
p atrol vehi cle additional counterfeit bills fell out of Dawson’s pants. After more counterfeit bills were located on Dawson’s person, he stated he hadSTATE v. D AWSON Decision of the Court

3 sold a cell phone to a woman inside the bar for $500 and that she paid him wi th the counterfeit bills. A review of video footage did not substantiate Dawson’s version of events.

¶6 A detective testif ied as an expert on fraudulent currency. The detective determined the bills were fraudulent based on: matching serial numbers
, lack of press marks
, lack of a rough texture
, lack of microprinting
, use of the wrong material
, and lack of a watermark.

¶7 At the close of the State’s case

- in

- chief, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 20 and the court denied the motion. Dawson was permitted to present closing arguments on his own behalf.

¶8 Before deliberations, t he jury was instructed on the law. The court explained the presumption of innocence, the weight to give testimony, the elements of the charge, the requirement of a unanimous verdict, and the State’s burden of proof.

¶9 The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts. Thereafter, the same jury was instructed on the State’s allegation of a ggravating factors. The jury returned unanimo us verdicts determi ning the se aggravating factors were proven : financial harm to the bar (counts 1

- 2) ; and the offense was committed for pecuniary gain ( counts 1

- 10 )

. Additionally, Dawson admitted to two previous felony convictions.

¶10 The superior court con ducted a sentencing hearing in compliance with Dawson’s constitutional rights and Rule 26. The superior court considered the presentence report and Dawson ’s allocution at the sentencing hearing. T he superior court found D awson’s drug addiction, Dawson’s mother’s failing health, and his age were mitigating factors which outweighed the aggravating factors found by the jury.

¶11 The court sentenced Dawson as follows : c ount 1, the presumptive term of 15. 75 years ’ imprisonment ; c ounts 2

- 10, 15, and 27, a term of ten years ’ imprisonment as to each ; and c ount 11, six months ’ imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently

. Dawson received 886 days of pr esentenc e incarceration credit towards

c ounts 1

- 11 and 798 days of presentence incarce ration credit towards c ounts 15 and 27.

DISCUSSION

¶12 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300 , and findSTATE v. D AWSON Decision of the Court

4 none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record shows defense trial counsel represented Dawson at all stages of the proceeding; except for closing arguments where Dawson was granted his request to proceed pro per with defense trial counsel acting in an ad visory capacity.

¶13 The evidence presented at trial was subst antial and supports the verdict s. The jury was properly comprised of twelve members and the court properly instr ucted the jury on the elements of the charges
, Dawson ’s presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a presentence report, Dawson was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing, and his sentences were within the range of acceptable sentences fo r his offenses.

¶14 We decline to order briefing and affirm Dawson’s convictions and sentence s

. ¶15 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Dawson ’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more t han inform Dawson of the outcome of this appeal and hi s future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

- 85 (1984)

. ¶16 Dawson has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review or motion for reconsideration.

CONCLUSION

¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.