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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

TIMITHOY DEANGELO MAY
, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0497

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016

- 125413

- 001 DT The Honorable Joseph P. Mikitish
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee

The Law Office of Kyle T. Green
, Tempe By Kyle T. Green C ounsel for Appellant FILED 7-31-18STATE v. MAY Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision o f the Court, in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge James P. Beene joined.

C R U Z , Presiding Judge:

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

. Counsel for Tim i th o y Deangelo May has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. May was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class 3 dangerous felony; four counts of aggravated assault, C lass 4 felonies ; one count of aggravated assault, a Class 6 felony; and one count of aggravated assault, a Class 3 dangerous felony

. May was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona , but he has not done so. After reviewing the record,

we affirm May’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment and resolve all reaso nable inference s against May

. See State v. Fontes , 195 Ariz. 229, 230
, ¶ 2 (App. 1998)

. ¶3 On the evening of May 28, 2016, t he victim’s girl friend was at her and the victim’s home when she heard noise s coming from outside. She went outside and saw t wo men kicking and beating t he victim

. As she covered the victim with her body to protect him, t he men took the victim’s wallet and two cell phones. The men then left the scene, and the victim’s girlfriend called the police and provided a description of the assailants

. ¶4 Pol ice officers began patrolling the area and eventually came across May. May’s description matched the description provided by the victim’s girlfriend, and t he victim’s girlfriend positively identified May as one of the assailants in a one

- on

- one identifica tion

. The police officers then detained May and required him to remove his belt and shoes. When he removed his shoes, the officers found the victim’s commercial driver ’ s license inside May’s shoe.

¶5 The State indicted May with one count of aggravated robbe ry, a Class 3 dangerous felony and six counts of aggravated assault, four ofSTATE v. MAY Decision of the Court

3 which were designated Class 4 felonies, one of which was designated a Class 6 felony, and another designated as a Class 3 dangerous felony. The State alleged as aggravating circu mstances that the offenses involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury; the offense involved the presence of an accomplice; the defendant committed the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in the expectation of the r eceipt, of anything of pecuniary value; and that the offense caused physical, emotional, or financial harm to the victim.

¶6 The jury found May guilty of all counts. As to the count of aggravated robbery , t he jury found the State had proven the aggravating f actors of the offense involving the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury; the offense involving the presence of an accomplice; and the defendant committing the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in the expectation of the r eceipt, of anything of pecuniary value. As to five of the counts of aggravated assault, the jury found the State had proven the offense involved the presence of an accomplice. Finally, as to the count of aggravated assault, a Class 3 dangerous felony, the jury found the State proved the offense involved the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury and the offense involved the presence of an accomplice.

¶7 The court sentenced May to six years’ imprisonment for count 1, six years’ impriso nment for count 6, to run concurrently with cou nt 1, and credited May 355 days of presentence incarceration credit. The court also suspended the sentences on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, and placed May on three years’ probation to begin on his discharge from prison. Finally, it assessed fees for probation service, probation assessment, time payment, victims’ rights enforce ment, and a penalty assessment.

¶8 May timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12

- 120.21(A)(1), 13

- 4031, and 13

- 4033.

DISCUSSION

¶9 We review May’s convictions and sentences for fundamental

error. See State v. Flores , 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for May has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible

error, see Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the recor d reveals, counsel represented May at all stages of theSTATE v. MAY Decision of the Court

4 proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing and affirm May’s convictions and
sentences

. ¶10 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform May of the s tatus of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no further obligations 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). May shall 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.

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.