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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

IRVINE, Presiding Judge.

¶ 1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Marcos Guillermo Carlyle asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Carlyle was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. Carlyle has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm his convictions and sentences for burglary in the second degree and possession of burglary tools.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Carlyle. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). Carlyle and three others entered a vacant house and proceeded to tear copper pipes from the walls using a hammer. A neighbor heard loud banging and called the police. Carlyle was caught climbing out the window. After police read him his Miranda rights, Carlyle admitted that he entered the house intending to take the copper pipes to sell as scrap metal. The owner of the home testified Carlyle did not have permission to do so.

¶ 3 The State charged Carlyle with burglary in the second degree, a class 3 felony (Count 1), and possession of burglary tools, a class 6 felony (Count 2). Despite prior notices and several continuances, Carlyle failed to appear and the trial was conducted in absentia. At the close of the evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offenses. It also instructed the jury not to speculate as to why Carlyle did not appear or to hold that as evidence of guilt. Carlyle was convicted as charged. The jury found that Carlyle had accomplices and committed the offenses for pecuniary gain.

¶ 4 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Carlyle's constitutional rights and Rule 26 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Through fingerprint evidence and witness testimony, the State proved that Carlyle had three historical priors for sentencing purposes. The State also proved that Carlyle was on probation at the time of the offenses. The trial court sentenced Carlyle to presumptive prison terms of 11.25 years for Count 1 and 3.75 years for Count 2, to be served concurrently, with credit for 212 days of presentence incarceration. The trial court also imposed restitution in the amount of $9077.55. For the probation violation, Carlyle was also sentenced to a one year prison term to be served consecutive to these sentences.

DISCUSSION

¶ 5 We review Carlyle's convictions and sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). Counsel for Carlyle has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law. We have read and considered counsel's brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Carlyle was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing and we affirm Carlyle's convictions and sentences.

¶ 6 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Carlyle of the status of his appeal and of his future 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). On the Court's own motion, Carlyle shall 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

¶ 7 We affirm.

JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge and PHILIP HALL, Judge, concurring.