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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RALPH MICHAEL DAHL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0584 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201601438

The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 6-12-2018
STATE v. DAHL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Ralph Dahl appeals his conviction and sentence for one count 

of theft. After searching the entire record, Dahl’s defense counsel 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 

(1969), defense counsel asked this Court to search the record for 

fundamental error. Dahl was granted an opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief in propria persona and did not do so. After reviewing the entire record, 

we find no error. Accordingly, Dahl’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On July 23, 2016, Rick S. discovered that his forty-foot storage 

container located on property in Golden Valley where he planned to

ultimately build a home had been broken into and approximately ninety 

percent of its contents removed.

1 The police took a brief description of a 

few things Rick knew were missing but were unable to detect any 

footprints, fingerprints, or tire tracks that would assist them in identifying 

the perpetrator.

¶3 The following day, Rick’s friend saw a box laying in the street 

near his home that looked similar to the ones stolen from Rick. Rick visually 

identified the box and confirmed it contained his wife’s clothing. He also 

saw more boxes underneath a disassembled truck across the street.

¶4 Police later recovered approximately one hundred boxes of 

Rick’s belongings from the property and returned them to Rick. A 

notebook discovered on the property contained the names of Rick’s 

 

1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” 

State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. 

Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)).
STATE v. DAHL

Decision of the Court

3

microphones, as well as phone numbers for several pawn shops in Nevada. 

The State charged the property owner, Dahl, with one count of theft.

¶5 At trial, Dahl testified that a man had brought the boxes on 

July 22, 2016, along with a truck for Dahl to repair. As payment for the 

work, Dahl accepted a few microphones. When the man drove the newly 

repaired truck away, he left the boxes on Dahl’s property. Dahl was unable 

to provide a name, address, or phone number for the man and did not write 

down the license plate number of the truck.

¶6 After an unsuccessful motion for judgment of acquittal, the 

jury convicted Dahl of theft of property valued at less than $1,000 — a class 

one misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Dahl to 120 days in jail with 

credit for one day of presentence incarceration, and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, 

and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any 

prejudicial error.”). A person is guilty of theft if, “without lawful authority,

the person knowingly . . . [c]ontrols property of another with the intent to 

deprive the other person of such property” or “[c]ontrols property of 

another knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen.”

A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1), (5). “Theft of any property . . . valued at less than 

one thousand dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor.” A.R.S. § 13-1802(G). The 

record contains sufficient evidence upon which the jury could determine 

beyond a reasonable doubt Dahl was guilty of misdemeanor theft.

¶8 All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

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

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

all critical stages, including the entire trial and the verdict. See State v. 

Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages) (citations 

omitted); State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical 

stages). The jury was properly comprised of eight jurors, and the record 

shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102(B); Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. 18.1(a). The trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the 

charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof, and Dahl’s presumption of 

innocence. At sentencing, Dahl was given an opportunity to speak, and the 

court stated on the record the evidence and materials it considered and the 

factors it found in imposing the sentence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. 
STATE v. DAHL

Decision of the Court

4

Additionally, the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. See 

A.R.S. § 13-707(A)(1).

CONCLUSION

¶9 Dahl’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. 

¶10 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Dahl’s 

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

than inform Dahl 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 (1984).

¶11 Dahl 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. 31.21. Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Dahl thirty days from 

the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration.