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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ANTHONY JOSEPH JENKINS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0202

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201801302

The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler

By Janelle A. McEachern

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-24-2022
STATE v. JENKINS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Appellant 

Anthony Joseph Jenkins was convicted of one count of third-degree 

burglary, a class four felony. Counsel for Jenkins has advised this court that 

counsel found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record 

for fundamental error. Jenkins has been afforded an opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. After

reviewing the record, we affirm Jenkins’ conviction and sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Jenkins. See State 

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

¶3 In February 2018, police received a report about a burglary at 

a recreational vehicle (“RV”) park in Bullhead City. They investigated and

found that the park’s office had been broken into. A safe, television, tools, 

cash, checks, and documents were missing. A surveillance video showed 

Jenkins and an accomplice near the office at around four a.m. on the day of 

the burglary. Some of the stolen items were later found in a hotel room that 

had been registered in Jenkins’ name.

¶4 The State charged Jenkins with one count of third-degree 

burglary, a class four felony. At trial, Jenkins moved for an Arizona Rule 

of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 20 judgment of acquittal at the close of the 

State’s evidence, which the superior court denied. Jenkins testified on his 

own behalf. He acknowledged being present at the RV park, but 

maintained the accomplice committed the burglary.

¶5 A jury convicted Jenkins as charged and found as an 

aggravating circumstance the presence of an accomplice. The jury found 

that an allegation that he committed the offense as consideration or in the 

expectation of pecuniary gain had not been proven. The superior court 
STATE v. JENKINS

Decision of the Court

3

found that Jenkins was a non-dangerous category three repetitive offender 

and sentenced him to the presumptive sentence of ten years in prison. The 

court gave Jenkins credit for 100 days of presentence incarceration.

¶6 Jenkins timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant 

to Arizona Constitution Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes 

sections 12-120.21(A), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review Jenkins’ conviction and sentence for fundamental 

error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for 

Jenkins has advised this court that after a diligent search of the 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, and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. All of the proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Rules. So far as the record reveals, 

counsel represented Jenkins at all stages of the proceedings, and the 

sentence imposed was within the statutory guidelines. We affirm Jenkins’ 

conviction and sentence.

¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Jenkins of the status of the appeal and 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). Jenkins will 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

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Jenkins’ conviction and 

sentence.