State v. Dahl ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
    v.
    RALPH MICHAEL DAHL, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 17-0584
    FILED 6-12-2018
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
    No. S8015CR201601438
    The Honorable Lee Frank Jantzen, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman
    By Jill L. Evans
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. DAHL
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.
    J O N E S, Judge:
    ¶1             Ralph Dahl appeals his conviction and sentence for one count
    of theft. After searching the entire record, Dahl’s defense counsel identified
    no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Therefore, in accordance
    with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), and State v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
    (1969), defense counsel asked this Court to search the record for
    fundamental error. Dahl was granted an opportunity to file a supplemental
    brief in propria persona and did not do so. After reviewing the entire record,
    we find no error. Accordingly, Dahl’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2             On July 23, 2016, Rick S. discovered that his forty-foot storage
    container located on property in Golden Valley where he planned to
    ultimately build a home had been broken into and approximately ninety
    percent of its contents removed.1 The police took a brief description of a
    few things Rick knew were missing but were unable to detect any
    footprints, fingerprints, or tire tracks that would assist them in identifying
    the perpetrator.
    ¶3            The following day, Rick’s friend saw a box laying in the street
    near his home that looked similar to the ones stolen from Rick. Rick visually
    identified the box and confirmed it contained his wife’s clothing. He also
    saw more boxes underneath a disassembled truck across the street.
    ¶4           Police later recovered approximately one hundred boxes of
    Rick’s belongings from the property and returned them to Rick. A
    notebook discovered on the property contained the names of Rick’s
    1      “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
    conviction[] with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.”
    State v. Harm, 
    236 Ariz. 402
    , 404 n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v.
    Valencia, 
    186 Ariz. 493
    , 495 (App. 1996)).
    2
    STATE v. DAHL
    Decision of the Court
    microphones, as well as phone numbers for several pawn shops in Nevada.
    The State charged the property owner, Dahl, with one count of theft.
    ¶5            At trial, Dahl testified that a man had brought the boxes on
    July 22, 2016, along with a truck for Dahl to repair. As payment for the
    work, Dahl accepted a few microphones. When the man drove the newly
    repaired truck away, he left the boxes on Dahl’s property. Dahl was unable
    to provide a name, address, or phone number for the man and did not write
    down the license plate number of the truck.
    ¶6            After an unsuccessful motion for judgment of acquittal, the
    jury convicted Dahl of theft of property valued at less than $1,000 — a class
    one misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Dahl to 120 days in jail with
    credit for one day of presentence incarceration, and we have jurisdiction
    pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031,
    and -4033(A)(1).
    DISCUSSION
    ¶7             Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 
    104 Ariz. at 300
     (“An exhaustive search of the record has failed to produce any
    prejudicial error.”). A person is guilty of theft if, “without lawful authority,
    the person knowingly . . . [c]ontrols property of another with the intent to
    deprive the other person of such property” or “[c]ontrols property of
    another knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen.”
    A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1), (5). “Theft of any property . . . valued at less than
    one thousand dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor.” A.R.S. § 13-1802(G). The
    record contains sufficient evidence upon which the jury could determine
    beyond a reasonable doubt Dahl was guilty of misdemeanor theft.
    ¶8              All the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the
    Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Dahl was
    represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at
    all critical stages, including the entire trial and the verdict. See State v.
    Conner, 
    163 Ariz. 97
    , 104 (1990) (right to counsel at critical stages) (citations
    omitted); State v. Bohn, 
    116 Ariz. 500
    , 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical
    stages). The jury was properly comprised of eight jurors, and the record
    shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102(B); Ariz. R. Crim.
    P. 18.1(a). The trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the
    charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof, and Dahl’s presumption of
    innocence. At sentencing, Dahl was given an opportunity to speak, and the
    court stated on the record the evidence and materials it considered and the
    factors it found in imposing the sentence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.
    3
    STATE v. DAHL
    Decision of the Court
    Additionally, the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. See
    A.R.S. § 13-707(A)(1).
    CONCLUSION
    ¶9            Dahl’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
    ¶10            Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Dahl’s
    representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more
    than inform Dahl of the outcome of this appeal and his future options,
    unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to
    our supreme court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    ,
    584-85 (1984).
    ¶11            Dahl has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed,
    if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. R. Crim.
    P. 31.21. Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Dahl thirty days from
    the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for
    reconsideration.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4