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(Not for Publication — Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)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

GOULD, Judge.

¶1 Makale Deng Kual Arob ("Arob") appeals from his conviction and sentence for one count of aggravated assault, a class three felony, dangerous offense. Arob was sentenced on December 8, 2011 and timely filed a notice of appeal on the same date. Arob's counsel 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 this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, no arguable ground exists for reversal. Arob was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona on or before September 10, 2012, and did not do so.

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal 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 have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A)(1) (West 2012).1 Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History2

¶3 Victim L.E. is part-owner of a television repair store. Each night, L.E. would sleep at the store.

¶4 According to L.E., Arob was hired to clean the store. On occasions, L.E. would also pay Arob to wash his clothes or to buy food, but L.E. never paid Arob a salary. This arrangement continued for a few months. L.E. testified that although he never gave Arob permission to sleep at the store, one of his business partners did allow Arob to sleep at the business.

¶5 In April, 2010, L.E. asked Arob to leave the premises and Arob refused. L.E. called the police. When the police arrived they told Arob to take his belongings and leave the store. Although Arob left, he did not take his belongings with him. L.E. eventually removed Arob's belongings from the store because the police advised him to do so.

¶6 L.E. testified that later that same evening, Arob returned to the store and knocked on the door. L.E. did not answer the door because, "for me, he had no business being there." Arob continued to knock on the door for approximately one and a half hours. Eventually, L.E. went back to sleep.

¶7 Later that evening, Arob returned to the store. When L.E. woke up, Arob was standing "on" him with "his foot." L.E. could see that Arob had a knife in his pocket, as well as four cell phones in his pocket that belonged to L.E. Arob then walked out the front door of the store, and L.E. followed him down the street in an effort to get his cell phones back. After a short while Arob turned around and pulled a knife on L.E. L.E. backed up and turned to run when Arob stabbed him in the shoulder. L.E. fell to the ground and Arob got on top of him. L.E. begged Arob to "please don't kill me," and Arob got off of him. L.E. then ran away.

¶8 L.E. fled to a local convenience store and asked them to call the police. While at the store, L.E. saw Arob in the door of the store motioning for him to come outside. L.E. refused and Arob eventually left the store.

¶9 At trial, Arob testified he was hired by "John," the owner of the business, to fix electronics. Arob further testified John hired him to watch his two employees because he felt they were stealing money from him. The owner instructed Arob not to tell anyone he was watching the two employees. According to Arob, he was given a key and was allowed to sleep at the store.

¶10 Arob testified that prior to the April 2010 incident, he had had an altercation with L.E. The altercation occurred when L.E. learned that Arob had told the store owner that he saw L.E. keeping money from a customer.

¶11 Arob testified that the day he was asked to leave the store by the police, he later returned to the store to collect his belongings. At the time he returned, he found his belongings outside the store in the trash. When Arob asked an employee why his belongings were thrown in the trash, the employee told him to leave the store. Later, when Arob again returned to the store, the police were there and asked him to leave. Arob testified he then left the store and did not see L.E. again. Arob stated he does not know how L.E. was injured.

¶12 Arob was arrested on April 19, 2010. Arob was charged with Count One, aggravated assault, and Count Two, burglary in the first degree. Pursuant to a motion by the State, Count 2 was dismissed on the first day of trial.

¶13 Arob was either present or waived his presence and was represented by counsel throughout all stages of the case. A jury eventually found Arob guilty of aggravated assault, and further found that it was a dangerous offense. The jury also found the State proved as an aggravating factor that the offense caused physical, emotional or financial harm to the victim.

¶14 During a hearing on Arob's prior felony convictions, the Court noted Arob admitted during the trial he had two prior felony convictions, and the State further proved the two convictions. Arob was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing.

¶15 The trial court sentenced Arob to an aggravated prison term of 13 years with credit for 597 days served.

Discussion

¶16 We have read and considered the entire record and have found no meritorious grounds for reversal of Arob's conviction or for modification of the sentence imposed. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. Arob was present at all critical stages of the proceedings and was represented by counsel. All proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and substantial evidence supported the finding of guilt. Accordingly, we affirm.

Conclusion

¶17 Counsel's obligations pertaining to Arob's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Arob of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Arob shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.3

MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge, DONN KESSLER, Judge, concurring.