THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

(Not for Publication — Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

BROWN, Judge.

¶1 Roland Harold McGuire appeals his conviction and sentence for third degree burglary. Counsel for McGuire filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. McGuire was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.

¶2 Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against McGuire. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

¶3 The State charged McGuire with one count of burglary in the third degree, a class 4 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1506(A)(1) (2012).1 The following evidence was presented at trial.

¶4 McGuire and an acquaintance, Donald Hupe, parked a truck in an alleyway behind the victim's home. They were pulling a trailer carrying a transportable engine hoist and numerous tools. Due to a fire that had destroyed the victim's home earlier that year, the victim was in the process of rebuilding and he checked the property daily. The victim also installed a security fence around the perimeter of his property as well as visible "no trespassing" signs; he also boarded up the window areas. Ignoring the warnings and without permission, McGuire and Hupe pried open the fence and entered the victim's backyard.

¶5 Meanwhile, the victim arrived at his property and noticed the truck parked in the alleyway behind his house. He drove around to the front of his house, parked his car, and entered the backyard through the side gate on foot. He saw McGuire and Hupe inside a shed trying to connect a 500-pound engine to their engine hoist. Specifically, he noticed McGuire inside the shed hooking the chain from the engine to the hoist. The victim yelled to them to stay there and he went to call 9-1-1. McGuire and Hupe jumped into the truck and sped away, leaving behind the engine and many of their tools.

¶6 With the 9-1-1 operator on the line, the victim followed McGuire and Hupe until his car broke down. However, he was able to give the operator precise information as he followed the truck and eventually police officers apprehended McGuire and Hupe. They were arrested and, after being informed of his Miranda2 rights, McGuire admitted he entered the victim's backyard to "look[] for metal to sell to make money" and that he was "there to help [Hupe] retrieve some scrap metal, or an engine."

¶7 A jury found McGuire guilty as charged.3 The court sentenced McGuire to a slightly mitigated two-year prison term, with credit for 57 days of presentence incarceration. The court also ordered McGuire and Hupe to be jointly and severally liable for restitution in the amount of $500 for the damage caused to the victim's vehicle. This timely appeal followed.

¶8 We have searched the entire record for reversible error and find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record shows McGuire was present and represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm McGuire's conviction and sentence.

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform McGuire of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense 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, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). McGuire shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge, DONN KESSLER, Judge, concurring.