Court Opinion

ID: 9397591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 17:09:55.029024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.013578
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                    SHANE EDWARD CRAIG, Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CR 22-0328
                                FILED 5-25-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR202100744
                The Honorable Derek C. Carlisle, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Janelle A. Mc Eachern, Attorney at Law, Chandler
By Janelle A. Mc Eachern
Counsel for Appellant

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
                              STATE v. CRAIG
                             Decision of the Court

G A S S, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1             Shane Edward Craig filed this appeal in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297
(1969). Craig’s counsel searched the record and identified no arguable,
non-frivolous question of law. Counsel asks this court to review the record
for fundamental error. This court gave Craig the chance to file a
supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not done so. Finding no error
in the record, we affirm Craig’s convictions and sentences, although we
modify the sentencing minute entry to correct the statutory citations
relating to sentencing for repetitive offenders.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            This court views the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolves all reasonable inferences against
Craig. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3            Craig often helped a friend, T.L., who owned a business
cleaning out apartments. Sometime between December 2019 and January
2020, Craig and his accomplices—T.L. and two other people—cleaned out
the victim’s apartment. T.L. gave Craig a $700 check from the victim’s
checkbook, which he cashed. About two weeks later, T.L. gave Craig two
more of the victim’s checks totaling $8,750. Craig later testified he cashed
those checks and gave the money to T.L. At the same time, T.L. and the two
other people who helped clean the apartment also cashed several of the
victim’s checks.

¶4           In February 2020, the victim notified his bank that money was
missing from his checking account. In total, Craig and his accomplices
withdrew $29,400 from the victim’s account. A detective investigated the
suspicious withdrawals and determined Craig and his accomplices cashed
the checks. An officer later arrived at Craig’s workplace and served him
papers notifying him of his charges.

¶5             The State originally charged Craig with 16 counts but
dismissed 11 counts before trial. The State submitted these offenses to the
jury: fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class 2 non-dangerous felony
(count 1); forgery, a class 4 non-dangerous repetitive felony (counts 2–4);
and theft, a class 3 non-dangerous felony (count 5). The jury convicted Craig
on all counts. The superior court sentenced Craig to a total of 12 years under
A.R.S. §§ 13-701, -702 as follows:

                                      2
                             STATE v. CRAIG
                            Decision of the Court

(a) concurrent terms of 5 years for count 1, 3 years for count 2, and 3.5 years
for count 5;

(b) a consecutive term of 4.5 years for count 3 (running consecutive to count
2 only); and

(c) a consecutive term of 4.5 years for count 4 (running consecutive to count
3 only).

              The superior court credited Craig with 29 days of presentence
incarceration and ordered him to pay $9,500 in restitution.

¶6             This court has jurisdiction over Craig’s timely appeal under
article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 13-4031 and
-4033.A.1.

                                 ANALYSIS

¶7              We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully
reviewed the record for reversible error, finding none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at
300; State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

¶8            The superior court conducted all proceedings in compliance
with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Craig was present for, and
represented by counsel at, all critical stages of the proceedings. See State v.
Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977); State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990). The
jury was properly comprised of twelve jurors and one alternate. See A.R.S.
§ 21-102.A. No evidence shows jury misconduct. The superior court
properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses, the
State’s burden of proof, and Craig’s presumed innocence. The superior
court gave Craig the chance to speak at sentencing, and the sentence the
superior court imposed fell within the statutory guidelines. See Ariz. R.
Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10(b)(1); A.R.S. §§ 13-702, -703.

¶9            We note the July 8, 2022 Minute Entry: Judgment &
Sentencing Prison contains three clerical errors. For count 2, 3, and 4, the
minute entry cites A.R.S. § “13-702”; it should have referred to subsection
A.R.S. § “13-703(I)”(relating to sentencing for repetitive offenders). These
clerical errors did not prejudice Craig, but merit correction. We, thus,
modify the July 8, 2022 Minute Entry as follows:

(1) at page two, under Count 2, strike “13-702” and insert “13-703(I)”;

(2) at page two, under Count 3, strike “13-702” and insert “13-703(I)”; and

                                      3
                            STATE v. CRAIG
                           Decision of the Court

(3) at page three, under Count 4, strike “13-702” and insert “13-703(I)”.

                              CONCLUSION

¶10           We affirm as modified Craig’s convictions and sentences.

¶11            Defense counsel’s obligations in this appeal have ended.
Defense counsel simply need inform Craig 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 through a
petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

¶12           Craig has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if
he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim.
P. 31.21. This court, on its own motion, extends the 15-day filing deadline
under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.20 and grants Craig 30 days
from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for
reconsideration.

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

                                        4