NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

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
C ounsel for AppellantSTATE 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 , 1 04 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 sev eral other items stolen from them. Some of the property found in Guarino's home was in a box bearing the
victims' name s 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. Altho ugh 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 S tate 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 befor e police arrived at his house.

¶4 A jury found Guarino guilty of theft of property with a value of $4,000 or more pursu ant 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 jur y on the elements of the charge , the State ' s burden of proof and t he necessity of a unanimous verdict. The jury re turned 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 sen tence 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, unle ss, upon review, counsel finds " an issue appropriate for submission " to the Arizona Suprem e 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

.