NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

DAVID PAUL GUARINO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0520

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201200341

The Honorable Steven F. Conn, 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
STATE v. GUARINO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 

(1969), following David Paul Guarino's conviction of theft, a Class 3 

felony. Guarino's counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no 

arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 

U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 

(App. 1999). Guarino was given the opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief but did not do so. Counsel now asks this court to search the record 

for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm

Guarino's conviction and sentence. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Police came to Guarino's home to investigate a burglary.1 

There they noticed a six-foot safe that matched the description of one 

reported stolen from a home a few weeks before. The safe appeared to 

have been broken into. Officers brought the burglary victims to Guarino's 

home, where the victims identified several other items stolen from them. 

Some of the property found in Guarino's home was in a box bearing the 

victims' names and address. Paperwork belonging to the victims, 

including bills and receipts, was found in Guarino's trash. 

¶3 Guarino did not claim to own the property and repeatedly 

apologized to the victims while they were at his home, but asserted he did 

not know the items had been stolen. Guarino claimed the items were 

given to him by an acquaintance who said he found them in a vacant 

house. Although Guarino knew his acquaintance had been convicted of 

burglary, he asserted he did not believe the property was stolen because 

 1 Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the jury's verdict and resolve all inferences against Guarino. 

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

Decision of the Court

3

he had told his acquaintance not to bring stolen property to his house. 

Guarino told police the acquaintance informed him the items were stolen 

just 15 minutes before police arrived at his house.

¶4 A jury found Guarino guilty of theft of property with a value 

of $4,000 or more pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section

13-1802(A)(5), (G) (2014), and the court sentenced him to a presumptive 

term of 11.25 years' incarceration.2 

¶5 Guarino timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1) (2014), 13-4031 (2014) and -4033 (2014).

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reflects Guarino received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and 

was present at all critical stages. The court held appropriate pretrial 

hearings. It did not conduct a voluntariness hearing, but the record does

not suggest a question about the voluntariness of Guarino's statements to 

police. See State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 419, 561 P.2d 739, 743 (1977); State 

v. Finn, 111 Ariz. 271, 275, 528 P.2d 615, 619 (1974).

¶7 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence 

sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly comprised of 

eight members. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of 

the charge, the State's burden of proof and the necessity of a unanimous 

verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict, and Guarino declined to 

have the jury polled. The court received and considered a presentence 

report, addressed its contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed 

a legal sentence for the crime of which Guarino was convicted.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881.

¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations 

pertaining to Guarino's representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Guarino of the outcome of this 

 2 Absent material revision after the date of the alleged offense, we 

cite a statute's current version.
STATE v. GUARINO

Decision of the Court

4

appeal and his future options, 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). On the court's own motion, Guarino has 30 days from the date of 

this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration. Guarino has 30 days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.