Court Opinion

ID: 9929061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 18:03:08.420218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:10.626375
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                   SHELBY ALAN SCHAFER, Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CR 22-0572
                               FILED 2-1-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
                        No. P1300CR202100859
               The Honorable Michael P. McGill, Judge

              AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Michael T. O’Toole
Counsel for Appellee

Zickerman Law Office, Flagstaff
By Adam Zickerman
Counsel for Appellant
                            STATE v. SCHAFER
                            Decision of the Court

                       MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in
which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1            Defendant Shelby Alan Schafer appeals his convictions and
sentences for one count of fraudulent schemes and artifices, one count of
trafficking in stolen property, and one count of theft of means of
transportation. Schafer’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising us there are
no meritorious grounds for reversal. Schafer was given an opportunity to
file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so.

¶2             After reviewing the record, we requested supplemental
briefing under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) on two issues: (1) whether
the trial court erred in empaneling a jury of less than twelve persons when
Schafer could have been imprisoned for thirty years, and (2) whether the
court erred in failing to expressly sentence Defendant on each count for
which he was convicted.

¶3             Having reviewed the entire record for reversible error, State
v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), we affirm Schafer’s convictions,
including his seven-year term of intensive probation on Count 1. We
remand, however, to allow the court to sentence Schafer on Counts 2 and 3.

               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶4           Schafer and Kimberly Prince were neighbors. After Prince’s
home burned in 2020, she moved away but stored on her property several
personal items that survived the fire, including an all-terrain vehicle
(“ATV”). Another neighbor, the Fairs, kept an eye on Prince’s stored
property.

¶5            The Fairs contacted law enforcement when they noticed
Prince’s ATV was missing. Prince provided law enforcement with a
description of the ATV along with copies of the title. Prince also reported
that the Fairs sent her a photograph of an ATV (which she believed to be
hers) on Schafer’s property.

                                       2
                              STATE v. SCHAFER
                              Decision of the Court

¶6            Months later, Schafer responded to a Facebook Marketplace
ad for a different ATV. Schafer asked the seller if he would be willing to
accept a trade—the advertised ATV for Schafer’s ATV. The seller agreed.
After the trade, the seller posted a Facebook Marketplace ad for Schafer’s
ATV. A potential purchaser asked the seller for the ATV’s vehicle
identification number (“VIN”). The seller discovered the VIN had been
scratched off and reported the ATV stolen. Law enforcement impounded
the ATV and confirmed it was Prince’s after recovering a portion of the
ATV’s VIN.

¶7            The State charged Schafer with three felonies: Count 1,
fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class 2 felony; Count 2, trafficking in
stolen property, a class 3 felony; and Count 3, theft of means of
transportation, a class 3 felony. A jury convicted Schafer as charged. The
trial court suspended Schafer’s sentence (on Count 1), placing him on
intensive probation for seven years. Schafer timely appealed. We have
jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

                                 DISCUSSION

¶8             Our review of the record shows no reversible error regarding
the convictions. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50. Schafer was represented by
counsel at all times and was present at all critical stages of the proceedings,
with the exception of a portion of the trial on September 22, 2022, for which
counsel waived Schafer’s presence. See State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104
(1990) (right to counsel at critical stages); see also State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500,
503 (1977) (right to be present at critical stages). The court properly
instructed the jury of Schafer’s presumption of innocence, the State’s
burden of proof, and the elements of the charged offenses.

¶9             The jury was comprised of eight jurors with two alternates.
See A.R.S. § 21-102. Because Schafer potentially faced thirty years’
imprisonment for his charges, twelve jurors would have normally been
required. See A.R.S. § 21-102(A). But the State effectively waived its ability
to seek thirty years’ imprisonment, and the trial court waived its ability to
sentence Schafer to the same, by empaneling only eight jurors. See State v.
Soliz, 223 Ariz. 116, 120, ¶¶ 16–18 (2009) (holding that a defendant “could
not, as a matter of law receive a sentence of thirty years or more . . . once a
jury of less than [12] began deliberations.”).

¶10          At sentencing, Schafer was given an opportunity to speak,
and the trial court stated on the record the evidence and factors it

                                         3
                           STATE v. SCHAFER
                           Decision of the Court

considered in imposing a term of probation. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.
The probation term was within the statutory range for Count 1, but not
within the statutory range for Counts 2 and 3. See A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(1).
Although the court failed to indicate which of Schafer’s convictions he was
being placed on probation for, only Count 1 allowed for a seven-year term.
See A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(1)–(2) (probation on a class 2 felony may continue for
up to seven years; probation on a class 3 felony may continue for up to five
years). Thus, we affirm Schafer’s convictions on all three counts, including
the seven-year term of probation for Count 1. But because the court failed
to impose a sentence (or suspend sentence and impose a term of probation)
upon Schafer for either Counts 2 or 3, we remand to allow the court to do
so. See A.R.S. § 13-701(I).

                              CONCLUSION

¶11           We affirm Schafer’s convictions, as well as his term of
probation for Count 1. We remand, however, to allow the trial court to
impose a sentence (or suspend a sentence and impose a term of probation)
for Counts 2 and 3.

¶12            After this decision’s filing, defense counsel must inform
Schafer of the outcome of this appeal. On this court’s motion, Schafer has
thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an
in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

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

                                        4