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, Judge.

¶1 This appeal is 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 Juan Manuel Romero, asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Romero was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Romero's convictions and sentences for Theft and Burglary.

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 Romero. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). While returning to his truck, the victim saw Romero jump out and run. The victim discovered several items missing from his truck, including a computer, camera, wallet and cell phone. He notified police, who searched Romero and found these items in his possession. After Romero was taken into custody, he confessed that he did something wrong and asked if he could be fined instead of arrested. Romero made these statements before a Miranda warning was given, but he was not being questioned by police at the time.

¶3 The State charged Romero with Theft, a class 3 felony, and Burglary, a class four felony. At the close of the evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. Romero was convicted of Theft of property valued at less than $1000, a misdemeanor, and Burglary in the third degree, a class four felony.

¶4 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Romero's constitutional rights and Rule 26 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court found that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Romero had a historical prior felony, resulting in "Category 2 offender sentencing" requirements. Romero was sentenced to time served for Amended Count 1, and a mitigated prison sentence of 2.25 years for Count 2, with credit for seventy-seven days presentence incarceration for each count.

DISCUSSION

¶5 We review Romero's convictions and sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). Counsel for Romero 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.

¶6 Before trial, Romero moved to suppress his statements to the police officer admitting that he should not have done what he did. The trial court denied the motion as untimely because it was made less than twenty days before trial. Although the trial court miscalculated the number of days remaining before trial, Romero did not object, so we review for fundamental error.

¶7 Romero's only argument for suppression was that the officer had interrogated him without a prior Miranda warning. At trial, the officer testified that he had placed Romero under investigative custody but did not ask any questions about the case when Romero suddenly and voluntarily made these statements.

¶8 Although Romero appears to have been intoxicated at the time of his arrest, proof of intoxication does not render a confession involuntary or inadmissible unless Romero did not understand the meaning of his statements. State v. Curry, 127 Ariz. 1, 3, 617 P.2d 785, 787 (App. 1980). Romero did not argue, nor does the evidence show, that he failed to understand the meaning of his statements. Therefore, we cannot find that admitting the statements was fundamental error.

¶9 Even assuming, however, that Romero's statements should have been suppressed, testimony from the officer and victim showing Romero did not have permission to be in the victim's truck or take his property were sufficient to establish guilt. In light of this and physical evidence of the items found in Romero's possession, he was not prejudiced by the admission of the statements.

¶10 The proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Romero was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing and we affirm Romero's convictions and sentences.

¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Romero 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). Romero shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. On the Court's own motion, we extend the time for Romero to file a pro per motion for reconsideration to thirty days from the date of this decision.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Presiding Judge, DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge, concurring.