NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

JOSEPH MATTHEW BENNETT, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0381

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2011-157395-001 SE

The Honorable Jose S. Padilla, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Myles A. Braccio

Counsel for Appellee

Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Michael J. Dew

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BENNETT

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

D O W N I E, Judge:

¶1 Joseph Matthew Bennett (“Appellant”) appeals his 

convictions and sentences for theft and attempted trafficking in stolen 

property. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Appellant and another individual (“Codefendant”) stole 

property from the home of J.M. and P.M. The two men later rented a hotel 

room, where they laid out the stolen items to “take inventory” and 

determine what was valuable. Codefendant “felt horrible” about 

committing the crime. He left the hotel and drove to his parents’ home, 

where he confessed and told his parents to call the police. When officers 

arrived, Codefendant admitted his role in the theft and disclosed the 

location of the stolen property. 

¶3 Officers arrested Appellant in a hotel room adjoining the 

room he and Codefendant had rented, where Appellant was attempting to 

sell some of the stolen jewelry. During police questioning, Appellant 

admitted his involvement in the theft. 

¶4 A jury found Appellant guilty of the charged offenses and 

determined that the stolen property was worth between $4,000 and 

$25,000, making the theft conviction a class 3 felony. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

(“A.R.S.”) § 13-1802(G). Appellant timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶5 The only issue Appellant raises on appeal is whether there 

was sufficient evidence that the stolen property had a value between 

$4,000 and $25,000. To set aside a verdict based on insufficient evidence, 

“it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there 

sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the jury.” State v. 

Arredondo, 155 Ariz. 314, 316 (1987). 
STATE v. BENNETT

Decision of the Court

3

¶6 Appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal at trial, arguing 

P.M.’s testimony about the value of the property stolen from her home

was “far from substantial evidence.” The court denied the motion and 

later instructed the jury as follows:

“Value” means the fair market value of the property or 

services at the time of the theft. When property has an 

undeterminable value, you shall determine its value, and in 

reaching your verdict may consider all relevant evidence, 

including evidence of the property’s value by its owner.

Appellant did not object to this instruction, which is consistent with the 

statutory definition of “value.” See A.R.S. § 13-1801(A)(15). 

¶7 “Ordinarily, the owner of property is competent to give an 

opinion of its value.” State v. Rushing, 156 Ariz. 1, 4 (1988). P.M. testified 

about the stolen property and offered values for several items that officers

had recovered and photographed. She also testified that she received an 

insurance payment of $53,517.39 as a result of the theft, and she relied on 

purchase prices and prior appraisals in arriving at her value estimates for 

various items. 

¶8 Based on P.M.’s testimony, reasonable jurors could conclude 

that Appellant stole property valued at between $4,000 and $25,000. We 

reject Appellant’s assertion that because the value of items that were not 

recovered and returned to the victims totaled less than $1,000, the jury 

could not factually conclude that he stole more than $4,000 worth of 

property. Appellant cites no authority for this novel proposition, and we 

are aware of none. Such a proposition is contrary to the definition of theft, 

which includes knowingly controlling property of another with the intent 

to deprive the other person of such property. See A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1). 

Moreover, adopting Appellant’s flawed logic, he could steal a master 

artwork valued at $10 million, but if it were later recovered and returned 

to its rightful owner, he could not be found guilty of theft. We reject such 

an unsupported (and unsupportable) claim. 
STATE v. BENNETT

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences.