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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

, Appell ee

v.

ADRIAN RUIZ ESPINOZA

, Appell ant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0850

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2013

- 103414

- 001

The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenB erg , Commissioner

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTE D

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appell ee

Ballecer & Segal , Phoenix By Natalee E. Segal

C ounsel for Appell antSTATE v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris deliver ed the decision of the Court, in

which Judge L awrence F. Winthrop and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

N O R R I S

, Judge:

¶1 Adrian Ruiz Espinoza timely appeals from his conviction and

sentence for knowingly p ossessing a shotgun while being a prohibited possessor in violation of Arizona Revised Statu t es (“A.R.S.”) section 13

- 3102 (A)(4) ( Supp. 2014) , a class 4 felony. 1 After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Espinoza ’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) , and State v. Leon , 104 Ari z. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969) , asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. This court granted counsel’s motion to allow Espinoza to file a supplemental brief in propria persona , but Espinoza did not do so. After reviewing the entire record , we find no fundamental error and,
therefore, affirm Espinoza’s conviction and sentence as correcte d.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2

¶2 On the evening of January 18 , 2013, two Mesa police o fficers saw a car, driven by a man with a wom a n passenger , with n o headlights

and a smashed

- in front windshield. The car stopped at a carwash, and t he officers pulled up behind it.

¶3 One of the officers confirmed the car was registered to both the woman and Espinoza , and the woman authorized the officers to search

the car

. Before the officers began their search

, Espinoza told one of the

officer s a gun was in a case on the floorboard behind him. When the officer opened the back passenger door, he saw a backpack

— that the police later determined contained items belong ing to Espinoza

— laying partially over

1 Although the Arizona Legislature amended certain statute s after Es pinoza’s offense, the amendment s are irrelevant to and do not affect
the outcome of this case. Thus, we cite to the current version of the statute s

.

2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against E spinoza

. See State v. Guerra , 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989)

.STATE v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

3 the gun case. The gun case contained a shotgun

. The police also found a

k nife near the gun case and backpac k.

¶4 The State charged Espinoza with two counts of misconduct involving weapons, specifically knowingly possessing a shotgun, and a knife, both deadly weapons, while being a prohibited possessor in violation

of A.R.S. § 13

- 3102 (A)(4) , a class 4 felony

. At trial, the State presented

evidence that Espinoz a had been convicted of a felony in 2009 and was on community supervision on January 18, 2013. The jury found Espinoza guilty o f m isconduct involving weapons for possession of the shotgun, but
not g uilty o f m isconduct involving weapons for possession of the knife.

After the jury returned its verdic t s, Espinoza admitted he was on community supervision on the date of the offense and had four historical prior felony convictions

.

¶5 T he superior court found Espinoza was a category three repetitive offender and sentence d him to the presumptive term of 10 years

with 293 days of presentence incarceration credit

. See A.R.S. § 13

- 703 (C), (J) (Supp. 2014).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and

find none. See Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881

. Espinoza received a

fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages.

¶7 The evidence presented at trial was substan tial and supports

the verdict . The jury w as properly comprised of 12 members and the court properly instr ucted the jury on the elements of the charge s , Espinoza ’s presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a

presentence report, Espinoza was gi ven an opportunity to , and did, speak at sentencing, and his sentence was within the range of acceptable sentences

for his offense

.

¶8 In our review of the record, we discovered an error in the superior court’s sentencing minute entry. The minute entry incorrectly lists Espinoza’s prior aggravated assault conv iction as Maricopa County Superior Court Cause No. CR2009

- 128745

- 001 . The aggravated assault

conviction cause number is the same cause n umber as the armed robbery

conviction, CR2009

- 128756

- 0 01, thus we correct the minute entry to read the

same.STATE v. ESPINOZA

Decision of the Court

4 CONCLUSION

¶9 We decline to order briefing and affirm Espinoza’s conviction

and sentence as corrected

.

¶10 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Espinoza ’s repre sentation in this appeal have ended. Defense

counsel need do no more than inform Espinoza of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 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, 684 P.2d 154, 156

- 57 (1984)

.

¶11 Espinoza has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court’s own motion, we also grant Espinoza 30 days from the date of this

decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.