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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

HEATHER LYNN BROOKS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0221 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR202201101

The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Kenneth S. Countryman PC, Tempe

By Kenneth S. Countryman

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 09-03-2024
STATE v. BROOKS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Heather Lynn Brooks appeals her convictions and sentences 

for theft of means of transportation and theft. After searching the entire 

record, Brooks’ defense counsel identified no arguable question of law that 

is not frivolous. Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asked this 

Court to search the record for fundamental error. Brooks was granted an 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona and did not do so. 

After reviewing the entire record, we find no error. Accordingly, we affirm 

Brooks’ convictions and sentences.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In September 2022, on a hot summer morning in Black 

Canyon City, S.T. offered a hitchhiker, Brooks, a ride in his Polaris Ranger, 

a utility task vehicle. S.T. drove Brooks to his house first. At his house, S.T. 

showered with Brooks, fed her, and laundered her clothes. S.T. went 

outside to answer a call from his girlfriend. While outside, S.T. heard the 

Ranger start up and then saw Brooks in the Ranger driving in reverse down 

the road. Inside the house, S.T. discovered the keys to the Ranger and his 

.44 magnum revolver missing. 

¶3 S.T. followed the Ranger’s tire tracks to the Agua Fria Creek. 

The Ranger was stalled in the mud and Brooks was swimming naked in the 

creek. Law enforcement officers coaxed Brooks out of the water.

Interviewed at the scene wearing only a blanket, Brooks admitted to taking 

S.T.’s Ranger and revolver. Brooks also admitted to being a prohibited 

possessor. The revolver was recovered in the mud next to the Ranger.

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 n.2 ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. Valencia, 

186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)).
STATE v. BROOKS

Decision of the Court

3

Brooks’ backpack was also found in the mud and contained various tools

such as sockets, can openers, and screwdrivers. 

¶4 Brooks was charged by information with count 1: theft of 

means of transportation; count 2: theft of a firearm; count 3: possession of 

burglary tools; count 4: misconduct involving weapons; and count 5: 

indecent exposure. Two days before trial, the State dismissed counts 4 and 

5. S.T. and two responding law enforcement officers testified at trial. After 

the State rested, Brooks moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts. 

Finding substantial evidence to support counts 1 and 2, the trial court 

granted the motion as to count 3 only. Brooks took the stand and admitted 

to having prior felony convictions. Brooks testified that she took S.T.’s 

Ranger and revolver because she feared being assaulted by him. 

¶5 The jury convicted Brooks of count 1: theft of means of 

transportation and count 2: theft. The trial court sentenced Brooks as a nondangerous, nonrepetitive offender to concurrent terms of 10 years 

imprisonment on count 1 and 2.25 years on count 2. Brooks was credited 

with 267 days’ presentence incarceration. Brooks timely appealed. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any 

prejudicial error.”). A person is guilty of theft of means of transportation if, 

without lawful authority, the person knowingly “controls another person’s 

means of transportation with the intent to permanently deprive the person 

of the means of transportation.” A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(1). Here, using keys 

taken from S.T.’s house, Brooks drove S.T.’s Polaris Ranger from his house 

until it stalled in the mud of the Agua Fria Creek. Brooks did not have S.T.’s 

permission to take the Ranger. A person is guilty of theft “if, without lawful 

authority, the person knowingly controls property of another with the 

intent to deprive the other person of such property.” Id. If the property 

taken is a firearm, then it is a class 6 felony. A.R.S. § 13-1802(G). Here, 

Brooks admitted to taking S.T.’s .44 magnum revolver without S.T.’s 

permission. The revolver was later found in the mud where Brooks had 

stalled the Ranger. The record contains sufficient evidence upon which the 

jury could determine beyond a reasonable doubt Brooks was guilty of the 

charged offenses.
STATE v. BROOKS

Decision of the Court

4

¶7 All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Brooks 

was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present 

at all critical stages, including the entire trial and the verdict. 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 twelve 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 on the elements of the 

charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof, and Brooks’ presumption of 

innocence. At sentencing, Brooks was given an opportunity to speak, and 

the court stated on the record the evidence and materials it considered and 

the factors it found in imposing the sentences. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 

26.10. Additionally, the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. 

See A.R.S. §§ 13-701 through -709 (as applicable).

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm Brooks’ convictions and sentences.

¶9 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Brooks’ 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more 

than inform Brooks of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, 

unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to 

our supreme court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584–85 (1984).

¶10 Brooks has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if she wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.21. Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Brooks 

thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion 

for reconsideration.