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

(Not for Publication — Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)

HOWE, 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 Larry Clinton Hayes asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Hayes was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm his conviction and sentence for Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation, a class five felony.

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 Hayes. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). In June 2007, police officers observed Hayes talking to a woman at a bus stop from a car stopped in the middle of the street shortly after midnight. They pulled Hayes over and ran the car's license plate. When they learned that the car had been stolen, the officers drew their weapons and ordered Hayes to exit the car. After exiting the car, Hayes became scared and fled down an alley. Police found him lying on a couch in the carport of his home and arrested him.

¶3 The State charged Hayes with Theft of Means of Transportation, a class 3 felony. Trial was delayed for numerous reasons over the next 2.5 years, including two findings that Hayes was incompetent to stand trial and orders for drug treatment; four changes of plea; several unsuccessful motions for change of counsel, the withdrawal of counsel after Hayes sued her and other attorneys at the Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, and Hayes's refusal to be transported to a pretrial hearing. In addition, a prior trial ended in mistrial because the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.

¶4 On February 4, 2010, the last day for trial, Hayes moved to dismiss arguing that, although he failed to object when the trial was set for a date in May, his rights to a speedy trial would be violated if a trial is held after the last day. The court held a hearing and found that "both parties and the Court b[ore] some responsibility for the fact that the trial date was set beyond the 02/04/2010, last day in this matter." Finding that "extraordinary circumstances exist and that a delay is indispensable to the interests of justice," the court excluded thirty days, vacated trial in May, and set trial for March.

¶5 A three-day trial was held in March 2010. In addition to the police officers' testimony, the car's owner testified that he had reported the car stolen from the front of his house two days before Hayes's arrest. Hayes testified, however, that the car had been parked in front of his neighbor's house for two days before another neighbor paid him about "10, 15" dollars to move it to the nearby American Legion's parking lot for "safekeeping." At the close of the evidence, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. The jury acquitted Hayes of the charged crime, but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation, a class three felony.

¶6 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Hayes's constitutional rights and Rule 26 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Hayes stipulated that he had four historical prior felonies for sentencing purposes. The court sentenced Hayes to a super-mitigated prison term of three years. Hayes received 984 days of presentence incarceration credit.

DISCUSSION

¶7 We review Hayes's conviction and sentence for fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 (1991). Counsel for Hayes has advised this Court that, after a diligent search of the entire record, she 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. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Hayes 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 his conviction and sentence.

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

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm.

MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge and PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge, concurring.