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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMES NORMAN ZIEGENFUSS, Appellant. 

 No. 1 CA-CR 17-0181 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-136002-001 

The Honorable Virginia L. Richter, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee 

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler

By Janelle A. McEachern

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 6-12-2018
STATE v. ZIEGENFUSS

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 James Norman Ziegenfuss appeals his convictions for 

burglary in the second degree, false reporting to a law enforcement agency

and the resulting sentences. Ziegenfuss’ counsel filed a brief in accordance 

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

(1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, counsel found

no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Ziegenfuss had the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks 

this Court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 

Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm 

Ziegenfuss’ convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 This case involved a Mesa burglary. Victim purchased a 

trailer to renovate in August 2015. He parked the trailer in a trailer park, 

storing his tools and supplies inside the cab. 

¶3 Victim’s neighbor saw defendant Ziegenfuss inside the trailer 

on August 3, 2015. Ziegenfuss was passing items through the trailer’s 

window into a PT Cruiser. Victim had never met Ziegenfuss and never 

gave him permission to enter the trailer. After loading the items,

Ziegenfuss drove away. A neighbor immediately reported the incident to 

Mesa Police and described Ziegenfuss’ vehicle. 

¶4 Police responded. Officer Christina Wilcox spotted and 

followed Ziegenfuss in a similar vehicle to the neighbor’s description. 

Ziegenfuss and Wilcox stopped at a red light. Wilcox noticed the back hatch 

of the PT Cruiser was loaded and unable to close. She also noticed the PT 

Cruiser had a temporary license plate, but the numbers were unclear. 

Officer Wilcox conducted a traffic stop. She observed various renovation 

supplies in the vehicle, including laminate flooring, cans of paint and

carpentry tools. 
STATE v. ZIEGENFUSS

Decision of the Court

3 

¶5 Officer Wilcox asked Ziegenfuss for identification. He 

provided a photocopied driver’s license, social security card and medical 

identification card. The picture on the license did not match Ziegenfuss. 

The date of birth also appeared to be inaccurate. Officer Wilcox conducted 

a pat-down search and found another identification card with the same 

photograph but a different name and birthdate. 

¶6 Ziegenfuss was arrested, read his Miranda rights and 

interviewed. He falsely stated that he owned a company named Built Right 

Construction and had been working on a trailer he just bought. 

¶7 Ziegenfuss was charged with one count of burglary in the 

second degree, a class three felony (“Count 1”), and one count of false 

reporting to a law enforcement agency, a class one misdemeanor (“Count 

2”). He voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial on Count 2 and the court 

found him guilty. 

¶8 Ziegenfuss received two jury trials on Count 1. The jury could 

not reach a verdict at his first, which lasted five days. Ziegenfuss asked for 

permission to represent himself at the second trial and signed a written 

waiver of his right to counsel. The court found that Ziegenfuss knowingly, 

voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel under Rule 6.1(c), 

Ariz. R. Crim. P., and granted his request to represent himself with the 

assistance of court-appointed advisory counsel. The jury found Ziegenfuss 

guilty on Count 1 at the second trial. The jury also found an aggravating 

factor that Ziegenfuss committed the offense in anticipation of pecuniary 

gain and the court found he had four prior felony convictions. The court 

sentenced Ziegenfuss to a ten-year term of imprisonment for Count 1 and a 

concurrent six-month term for Count 2. Ziegenfuss received 401 days of 

presentence incarceration credit. 

¶9 He timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. 

Const. art. VI, § 9 and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶10 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

reviewed the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. 

We find none.

¶11 The record reflects Ziegenfuss received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, prior to waiving this 

right, and was present at all critical stages. 
STATE v. ZIEGENFUSS

Decision of the Court

4 

¶12 Before his second trial, Ziegenfuss knowingly, voluntarily 

and intelligently waived his right to counsel. He still had advisory counsel 

appointed. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Ziegenfuss 

all his constitutional and statutory rights, and the proceedings were 

conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence 

presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support the

court’s judgment and jury’s verdict. Ziegenfuss’ sentences fall within the 

range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence 

incarceration. 

CONCLUSION

¶13 Ziegenfuss’ convictions and sentences are affirmed. Defense 

counsel’s obligations pertaining to Ziegenfuss’ representation in this appeal 

have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Ziegenfuss of the 

outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless 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 (1984). On 

the court’s own motion, Ziegenfuss has 30 days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration

or petition for review.