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

BARKER, Judge.

¶1 Pete Salias Montoya ("Montoya") appeals from his conviction and sentence for one count of misconduct involving weapons. Montoya's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising this court that after searching the entire record on appeal, she finds no arguable ground for reversal. Montoya was granted leave to file a supplemental brief in propria persona on or before October 31, 2011, but did not do so.

¶2 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 12-4033(A) (2010). We are required to search the record for reversible error. Finding no such error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background

¶3 Montoya appeals his conviction and sentence on one count of Misconduct Involving Weapons, a Class 4 felony. The State alleged that Montoya knowingly possessed a handgun while being a prohibited possessor on January 7, 2010.

¶4 At trial, two police officers testified that while they were waiting for another fugitive to arrive at a particular residence, they observed Montoya approach the residence. Although he did not physically resemble the fugitive they were waiting for, the officers became suspicious when he opened the door to the residence at the time they were expecting the fugitive and he "began to walk backwards" when he saw the officers. One of the officers testified that he approached Montoya, told Montoya that he was a police officer, and asked him to remove his hands from his pockets. When Montoya failed to do so, one of the officers grabbed his hands and placed him in handcuffs. During this interchange, the officer noticed that Montoya had a small black semiautomatic handgun at his waist.

¶5 The officer grabbed the gun. The officer testified that at this point in time, they still believed that Montoya was the fugitive they were looking for. The detective read Montoya his Miranda rights and asked Montoya if he understood that he was a policeman. Montoya replied that he did and explained that he had resisted because he was in shock. The officer testified that at this point, he made a records check and discovered that Montoya had a prior felony. He also testified that the gun was operable. For purposes of the trial, the parties stipulated to the fact that Montoya had a prior felony conviction. The jury found Montoya guilty as charged.

¶6 On January 20, 2011, the court held a hearing to determine whether Montoya had allegeable prior felony convictions. A forensic scientist testified that the prints taken from Montoya matched the prints found on three prior certified minute entries. The scientist was unable to match Montoya's prints to a fourth certified minute entry. The court found that the State had proven three prior convictions. The court then sentenced Montoya to a presumptive term of ten years in prison.

Disposition

¶7 We have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious grounds for reversal of Montoya's conviction or for modification of the sentence imposed. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Montoya was present, or his presence was waived (by failing to appear after being warned that such a failure would result in his being tried in absentia) at all critical stages of the proceedings. He was also represented by counsel. All proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, we affirm.

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

ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Presiding Judge, PATRICK IRVINE, Judge, concurring.