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

THOMPSON, Judge.

¶ 1 This case comes to us as 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 Andrew Bryant Cerny (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so.

¶ 2 Defendant got into a late afternoon driving altercation on the freeway with victim. The incident began when defendant was attempting to merge onto the freeway; victim had the right of way. Defendant first threw hot chocolate on victim's windshield then, moments later, shot at her vehicle. Victim's middle-school aged son was in the car. Defendant and victim each called 911. Defendant admitted, both at trial and to the responding officer, to throwing a drink at her car and discharging a weapon at her car. Defendant asserted at trial that victim's driving was aggressive and that he and his passenger felt their lives were in danger. On rebuttal, the responding officer indicated that defendant had not made those assertions in his police interview, rather that defendant had said he was thinking "back off bitch" and that he shot at the vehicle to show her he "means business." The bullet passed through the victim's license plate before lodging into a speaker box; no one was injured but both victims were afraid.

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with five counts: one count each endangerment, a class 6 dangerous felony, drive by shooting, a class 2 dangerous felony, discharge of a firearm at a structure, a class 3 dangerous felony, and one count of aggravated assault, a class 3 dangerous felony, as to both victim and her son. Defendant was convicted, on all counts, after a jury trial in which he testified. He was sentenced to concurrent presumptive terms of 7.5 years on counts three, four and five for the aggravated assaults and discharge of a weapon at a non residential structure. He was sentenced to the presumptive term of one year on the endangerment charge and a slightly mitigated term of 8.5 years on the drive by shooting charge. With regard to the drive by shooting sentence, the trial judge slightly mitigated it after considering defendant's lack of prior criminal history, his involvement in the community and his public service as a Marine. He received 31 days presentence incarceration. Defendant timely appealed.

¶ 3 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant's counsel's obligations in this appeal are at an end.

¶ 4 We affirm the convictions and sentences.

PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge, MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge, concurring.