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.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

JOHNSEN, Judge.

¶1 This appeal was 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), following Martin Gerardo Pacheco's conviction of criminal damage, a Class 6 felony. Pacheco's counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999). Pacheco was given the Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Pacheco's conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 While taking a walk early one morning, Pacheco believed he saw his niece walking toward him.1 A truck went by quickly, momentarily diverting his attention. When Pacheco turned back toward where he believed his niece had been, no one was there. He feared that she had been kidnapped and locked in a sports utility vehicle parked nearby. Being almost blind, Pacheco could not see into the vehicle, so in a frantic attempt to rescue his niece, he picked up a large rock and smashed the rear window. After shattering the window, Pacheco realized he was mistaken and no one was in the vehicle.

¶3 A jury convicted Pacheco of criminal damage, a Class 6 felony. It found him not guilty of charges of resisting arrest and aggravated assault. After the State proved Pacheco had four prior felony convictions, the superior court sentenced him to a presumptive term of 3.75 years' imprisonment.

¶4 Pacheco timely appealed. 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) (2003), 13-4031 (2010) and -4033(A)(1) (2010).2

DISCUSSION

¶5 The record reflects Pacheco received a fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and was present at all critical stages. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings.

¶6 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly comprised of twelve members with two alternates. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, the State's burden of proof and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which was confirmed by juror polling. The court received and considered a presentence report, addressed its contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed a legal sentence on the crime of which Pacheco was convicted.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881.

¶8 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Pacheco of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 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, Pacheco has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Pacheco has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.

MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge and JON W. THOMPSON, Judge, concurring.