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

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶ 1 Neil Cannon appeals his convictions for: one count of armed robbery, a class 2 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 13-1902 (2010), and -1904 (2010); one count of aggravated robbery, a class 3 felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1902 and -1903 (2010); and one count of aggravated assault, a class 3 felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1203 (2010) and -1204(A)(2), (B) (Supp. 2010).1 Cannon's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Cannon was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 "We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions." State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001).

¶ 3 On January 6, 2009, at approximately 10:50 p.m., Cannon entered the Circle K convenience store in Kingman Arizona with an accomplice. The store clerk was in the cooler doing some restocking of the shelves. Both perpetrators were dressed head to toe with gloves, bandanas, and hats or hoods. One person held a shotgun, racked a shell, and pointed it at the clerk. They ordered the clerk to the front of the store, and the unarmed person took the cash from the register while the other person held the gun on the clerk. The person with the gun took the clerk back toward the office within the store, held him at gunpoint ("shotgun [was] about 18 inches from my midriff") while the other accomplice stayed behind the counter.

¶ 4 The suspects fled with eighty-five dollars in cash, some cigarettes, and some lottery scratcher tickets. The clerk was able to describe the height of the armed person as above six feet tall. The clerk was also able to describe that person's skin as "olive" colored. Additionally, the clerk was able to identify the eyes of the armed person and did so in open court, identifying Cannon's eyes as very similar to the person holding the gun on him the night of the robbery.

¶ 5 The video surveillance footage and the height bars at the entrance of the store showed the armed person's height to be between 6'0" and 6'-3" tall. At trial, Officer O. testified that Cannon has an olive complexion and that he is 6'-3" tall.

¶ 6 On March 18, 2009, Detective G. and Sergeant C. interviewed Cannon at the police station. Cannon confessed to his participation in the Circle K robbery. Cannon stated that he held the shotgun on the clerk and that he and his accomplice stole approximately eighty dollars in cash, cigarettes, and lottery scratcher tickets.

¶ 7 Cannon did not testify at trial and his attorney called no witnesses. A unanimous jury convicted Cannon on all counts. The jury found count 2, the aggravated assault, a dangerous offense. Moreover the jury found the following aggravators: for count 1, armed robbery: threatened infliction of serious physical injury and the presence of an accomplice; for count 2, aggravated robbery: threatened infliction of serious physical injury; and for count 3: presence of an accomplice and commission of an offense for pecuniary gain.

¶ 8 Cannon received a mitigated sentence of 7.5 years for armed robbery (count 1), and the presumptive sentences of 7.5 years for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault (counts 2 and 3). All sentences are to be served concurrently. Furthermore, Cannon was given 307 days of presentence incarceration credit for each conviction.

¶ 9 Cannon timely appeals, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21 (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033 (2010).

DISCUSSION

¶ 10 Having considered defense counsel's brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The sentence imposed falls within the range permitted by law, and the evidence presented supports the conviction. As far as the record reveals, Cannon was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶ 11 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), counsel's obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Cannon of the disposition 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. Cannon has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶ 12 The convictions and sentences are affirmed.

JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge, concurring.