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

PORTLEY, Judge.

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Jose Llamas-Cervantes has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and has not filed one.

FACTS1

¶2 Defendant's convictions stem from his reaction to several confrontations between his seventeen-year-old son, Noel, and gang members of the Cashion Park Locos ("CPL"). He shot four people but only Junior Grado died.

¶3 Initially, Noel tried to run over Junior with his car. Subsequently, Junior, and others went to Defendant's house on September 22, 2008, to confront Noel, but he was not home.

¶4 Junior and his friends returned to Defendant's house the next day. Noel went outside, and Junior wanted to fight him. Defendant intervened by telling Junior to leave or else "[he] was going to fuck him up." Defendant then grabbed his shotgun and fired a shot into the ground to scare them off.

¶5 The next day, Junior and a large group of his friends again went to Defendant's home. Junior again confronted Noel, and they began to fight. Defendant went inside and grabbed his shotgun. When he came outside, he saw that his son had been knocked down and was not moving. Defendant then shot Junior in the back and killed him. He then fired into the crowd and struck three other people.

¶6 Defendant was indicted for second-degree murder, a class one dangerous felony; and three counts of aggravated assault, class three dangerous felonies. The jury acquitted Defendant on the murder charge, but found him guilty on all aggravated assault charges. He was subsequently sentenced to 7.5 years in prison on one count of aggravated assault, and five years on each of the other two counts of aggravated assault, all to run concurrently. He also received 603 days of credit for presentence incarceration.

¶7 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We have read and considered counsel's brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. We find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits.

CONCLUSION

¶9 After this decision has been filed, counsel's obligation to represent Defendant in this appeal has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and Defendant's future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d 154, 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶10 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant's convictions and sentences.

LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP and PATRICK IRVINE, Judges, Concurring.