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 timely 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 Jaime Arturo Olivas ("Olivas"), asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Olivas was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Olivas' convictions and sentences for one count of second degree murder, a class 1 dangerous felony, and one count of attempted second degree murder, a class 2 dangerous felony.

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 Olivas. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). On the night of December 6, 2009, Olivas went to his ex-girlfriend's ("L.") house. He brought an approximately twelve inch kitchen knife with him. He knocked on her window and they met outside the front door of the home. Olivas and L. engaged in a heated conversation, which ended when he punched her. L. screamed and Olivas ran from the house. L.'s father ("Father") came out of the house and Olivas and Father encountered each other at the end of the driveway. Olivas swung his knife at Father and they engaged in a physical altercation. L.'s mother ("Mother") came out of the house and joined them. During the altercation, Father and Mother were stabbed multiple times with the kitchen knife. Mother survived her injuries, but Father did not. The medical examiner concluded that Father died as a result of stab wounds he received during the fight with Olivas.

¶3 The State charged Olivas with one count of first degree murder, a class 1 dangerous felony, and one count of attempted first degree murder, a class 2 dangerous felony. At the close of evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offenses. Olivas was convicted of the lesser-included charges of second degree murder, a class 1 dangerous felony, and attempted second degree murder, a class 2 dangerous felony. The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Olivas' constitutional rights and Rule 26 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court sentenced Olivas to presumptive terms of 16 years' imprisonment for second degree murder and 10.5 years' imprisonment for attempted second degree murder. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively and gave Olivas 325 days of presentence incarceration credit. The trial court did not impose restitution, but retained jurisdiction over the matter.

DISCUSSION

¶4 We review Olivas' convictions and sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). Counsel for Olivas 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, Olivas was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The jury was correctly comprised of twelve jurors. The State provided sufficient evidence to allow a jury to convict Olivas of the lesser-included charges. The jury instructions correctly stated the burden of proof, presumption of innocence, Olivas' affirmative defense, and the correct elements for the charges. At sentencing, the judge considered the presentence report, aggravating and mitigating factors. Both Olivas and his counsel had the opportunity to speak. Olivas' sentences were within statutorily permissible ranges. We decline to order briefing and we affirm Olivas' convictions and sentences.

¶5 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Olivas 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). Olivas shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶6 We affirm.

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