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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

ALBERTO RIVAS, JR. , Appellant

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0259

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2020

- 137557

- 001 The Honorable Michael C. Blair
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office
, Phoenix By Thomas K. Baird C ounsel for Appellant FILED 3-2-2023STATE v. RIVAS Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass joined.

B A I L E Y , Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297 (1969)

. Counsel for Alberto Rivas, Jr. filed a brief advising this court that, after searching the entire record, he was unable to discover any arguable question of law and requesting that this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Rivas was given the opportunit y to file a supplemental brief pro per

. Although he did not do so, he raised three issues through counsel that we address. For the following reasons, we affirm Rivas’s conviction and sentence

.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 On October 6, 2020, t he State charged Rivas with aggravated assault, a class three dangerous felony and a domestic violence offense. For sentencing purposes, the State also alleged Rivas had five historical prior felony convictions and other non

- historical prior felony convictio ns.
¶3 Before trial, Rivas’s counsel raised concerns as to Rivas’s
comp etency to stand trial. Pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim. P., t he superior c ourt ordered Riv as to be evaluated

. After reviewing the results of two medical evaluations , the court found that Rivas understood the nature of the proceedings and the charges brought against him and was thus com petent to stand trial.

¶4 The State presented the following evidence a t Rivas’s three

day jury trial : On e day in Octob er 2020 , the victim returned home i n Glendale from work and stepped out of his truck . Rivas approached the victim , and the two began to argue about money

. When the victim told Rivas that he would not give Rivas any money , Rivas threatened to kill him and picked up a kitchen knife. After telli ng Rivas to put the knife down
, the victim reentered his truck. Rivas then grabbed a saw , threatened to kill the victim again
, and struck the truck window several times with the saw. The victim then drove his tr uck down th e street to a neighbor’s house. TheSTATE v. RIVAS Decision of the Court

3 victim told the neighbor that Rivas want ed to hurt him and asked the neighbor to call 911. Police officers soon arrived and arrested Rivas.

¶5 The jury found Rivas guilty as charged of one c ount of aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument and determined th e domestic violence allegation proven

. After finding that R ivas had at least
two non

- dangerous prior felony convictions, t he trial court sentenced him
to a minimum ten

- year prison term, with 610 days of present ence incarceration credit. Rivas filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A rizona R evised S tatutes (“A

. R

. S

. ”) §§ 12

- 120.21(A)(1), 13

- 4031 and

- 4033(A).

DISC USSION

¶6 In his supplemental brief, Rivas raised three issues through counsel

. First, he assert s the jurors were “ being offered pa yment through a commissary fund.” T he record does not reveal any evidence of imp roper payments made to the jury. J urors lawfu lly receive nominal compensation for their service, see A.R.S. § 21

- 221 , they are not paid based on their verdict or any other result
, see A.R.S. § 13

- 2808 , and the record does not reveal any evidence of jury tampering or misconduct. Rivas has shown no error.
¶7 Second
, Rivas claims that the person identified as the victim at trial “ was some one from a television news show. ” R ivas appears to claim that the prosecution’s testifying victim was someone other th an the actual victim

. However, no record evidence support s this claim

. At trial, the testifying victim identified himself by name and Rivas neither objected nor made any effort to develop this issue on cross

- examination

. Rivas has shown no error, much l ess reversible error.
¶8 Third, Rivas argue s insufficient evidence support ed his conviction. In addressing a sufficiency of the evidence argument, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility. See State v. Clark , 249 Ariz. 528, 534, ¶ 21 (2020) (citation omitted). I nstead, we determine whether substantial evidence supports the ve rdict, see id. , while view ing the evidence in the lig ht most favorable to affirming
, id. at 531, ¶ 3 (citation omitted)

. T he record reflects substantial evidence to support the verdict , as summarized above

. ¶9 We have searched the entire record for reversib le error and find none. See State v. Clark , 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (1999)

. Rivas was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and counsel was present at all critical stages. All proceedings were conducted in complianceSTATE v. RIVAS Decision of the Court

4 with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rivas’s constitutional and statutory rights

. The superior court permitted Rivas to speak at sentencing and imposed a sentence within the statutory limits
, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration

.
CONCLUSION

¶10 For all the reasons stated abov e, we affirm Rivas’s conviction and sentence

. Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is instructed to inform Rivas of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel has no further obli gations 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 (1984). Rivas will have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed , if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.