NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Appellee
,

v.

BRYAN GENE FELIX
, Appellant

.
N o . 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0540

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012

- 157059

- 001 The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Jr.
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appell ee
Maricopa County Public Defender
, Phoenix By Charles R. Krull C ounsel for Appell antSTATE v. FELIX Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

T H O M P S O N , Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1 967), and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Bryan Gene Felix (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona , but he has not done so.

¶2 O n the evening of April 17, 2012, fifteen year old victim M.M. was sitting on her ma t tress i n her parents’ trailer home when she hear d gunshots. Home alone and fearful that a gunman was going to enter the house and “finish the job,” M.M. hid in the bathroom

. M.M.’s grandmother, who lived just up the street
, heard the gun shots and saw a white Jeep speed past. Wanting to make sure everything was okay
, the grandmother went to the trailer and discovered M.M. They called 911.

¶3 M.M.’s father, G.M., arrived soon there after. Upon hearing that a white Jeep was involved, G.M. told the sh eriff’s officers that he “knew automatically . . . who did it

. ” G.M. led officers to defendant’s house
, where a whi te Jeep was parked and defendant stood outside with a gun in his hand.

¶4 Four shell casings were recovered on the road outside of the home a nd t hree bullet s penetrated the walls . Investigation revealed the bullets damag ed water pipes, and , in one case, completely pas sed through the mattress M.M. was sit ting on during the shooting

. A ballistics test and a gunshot residue test showed, respectively, that the bullets matched the gun defendant was holding when officers arrived , and that defendant had evidence of gunshot residue on him

. ¶5 The state charged defendant with one count of disch arge of a firearm at a structure, a class 2 dangerous felony; one count of endangerment (death), a class 6 dangerous felony; and one count ofSTATE v. FELIX Decision of the Court

3 disorderly conduct, a class 6 dangerous felony. A jury convicted defendant of all offenses. The trial court senten ced defendant to an aggravated term of 12 years imprisonment for count one, an aggravated term of 2.5 years imprisonment for count two and an aggravated term of 2.5 years imprisonment for count three, all to be served concurrently. The trial court gave de fendant 250 days of presentence incarceration credit.

¶6 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings wer e conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

- 85, 684 P.2d 154, 156

- 57 (1984), defendant’s counsel’s obligations in this a ppeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶7 We affirm the convictions and sentences.