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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Appellee
,

v.

A BDIRIZAK KOSHIN MOHAMED , Appellant

.
No. 1 CA-CR 20-0342

A ppeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2019-002879-001 The Honorable Aryeh D. Schwartz
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Linley Wilson Counsel for Appellee

Ma ricopa County Public Defender’s Office
, Phoenix By Mark E. Dwyer C ounsel for Appellant FILED 9-2-2021STATE v. MOHAMED Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W I L L I A M S , Judge:

¶1 Defendant Abdirizak Mohamed appeals his conviction and sentence for criminal damage. Mohamed’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising us there are no meritorious grounds for re versal. Mohamed was granted an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible

error, State v. Clark , 196 Ariz. 530, 537
, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) , viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Mohamed, see State v. Guerra , 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). After reviewing the entire record, we affirm.

FACTUAL 1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 I n February 2018, C .O. was leaving his apartment complex when he encountered Mohamed. Mohamed was walking down the sidewalk and started to cross in front of C.O.’s vehicle where the driveway and sidewalk connect. Mohamed claimed the vehicle came very close to him and he believed it was going to hit him

. Th e two exchange d words. C.O. then backed up his vehicle and Mohamed threw a large rock causing a dent to the back fender of the vehicle’s passenger side. Mohamed claimed he threw the rock in self

- defense after C.O. drove his car toward him at a high speed. After Mohamed threw the rock , C.O. exited his vehicle and confront ed Mohamed . C.O. claim ed Mohamed then threw a brick and other rocks at hi m before walking away. Mohamed denies ever throwing anything at C.O.

1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” State v. Harm , 236 Ariz. 402, 404, ¶ 3 n.2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. Valencia , 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)).STATE v. MOHAMED Decision of the Court

3 ¶3 C.O. called the police who later arrested Mohamed outside of

a nearby mosque. While being booked at the police station, Mohamed became agitated and spa t at an officer

. ¶4 Mohamed was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault, a C lass 3 and a Class 5 felony, and criminal damage, a C lass 5 felony. Before trial, defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 . The trial court obliged

. Following an evaluation and subsequent competency hearing, Mohamed was found competent to stand trial.

¶5 At trial
, the court denied Mohamed ’s motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 20 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure

. ¶6 The jury acquitted Mohamed o f both assault counts but found him guilty of criminal damage. See A.R.S. § 13-1602. The court suspended Mohamed ’s sentence and instead placed him on three years of supervised probation and ordered he pay $5,193 restitution. This timely appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 A person com mits criminal damage by “[r]ecklessly defacing or damaging property of another person.” A.R.S. § 13

- 1602(A)(1). Here, Mohamed admitted to causing damage by throwing a rock at C.O.’ s vehicle but claims he acted in self

- defense. The jury was properly instructed on the theory of self

- defense, bu t still found Mohamed guilty of criminal damage. See State v. King , 225 Ariz. 87, 90, ¶ 14 (2010) (noting “[a] defendant is entitled to a self

- defense instruction if the record contains the ‘ slightest evidence ’ that he acted in self

- defense” (quoting State v. Lujan , 136 Ariz. 102, 104 (1983)) ). The record contains sufficient evidence for a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Mohamed was guilty of criminal damage.

¶8 All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal P rocedure. So far as the record reveals, Mohamed was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages
, with the except ion of his competency proceeding , which he voluntarily waived his right to be present at

. See State v. Conner , 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages) (citations omitted); State v. Bohn , 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical stages). The jury was properly comprised of eight jurors, and the record shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21 -102; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The trial court properly instructed the jury o f theSTATE v. MOHAMED Decision of the Court

4 elements of the charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof, and Mohamed’s presumption of innocence. At sentencing, Mohamed was given an opportunity to speak, and the court stated on the record the evidence
, materials, and factors it considered before placing Mohamed on probation

. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10. Additionally, the length of the probation
term was within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(4).

CONCLUSION

¶9 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none; therefore, we affirm Mohamed’s conv iction and term of probation

. ¶10 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Mohamed’s representation in this appeal have ended. C ounsel need do no more than inform Mohamed of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel fi nds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

– 85 (1984). Mohamed has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petiti on for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Mohamed thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.