State v. Dawe ( 2016 )


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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    VALARIE LEEANN DAWE,
    Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 15-0016
    FILED 2-16-2016
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. 2013-003428001
    The Honorable Erin Otis, Judge pro tempore
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Joseph T. Maziarz
    Counsel for Appellee
    Patricia A. Hubbard, Phoenix
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. DAWE
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Maurice Portley joined.
    O R O Z C O, Judge:
    ¶1            Valarie Dawe (Defendant) appeals her convictions and the
    resulting sentence for two counts of fraudulent schemes and artifices, and
    two counts of theft. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967) and
    State v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
    (1969), Defendant’s counsel filed a brief
    indicating that she searched the entire record, found no arguable question
    of law that was not frivolous and asked this court to review the record for
    fundamental error. Defendant was afforded the opportunity to file a
    supplemental brief in propria persona, but she has not done so. For the
    following reasons, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            In spring 2008, Defendant offered to prepare Victim’s 2007 tax
    returns. Victim agreed and gave Defendant his W-2 forms. Defendant
    prepared and filed Victim’s State of Arizona and Federal income tax
    returns. Thereafter, Victim’s $5,216 Arizona tax refund and $9,080.82
    Federal tax refund were deposited directly into Defendant’s bank account.
    Without Victim’s knowledge or consent, Defendant purchased a van in
    April 2008 with funds from Victim’s tax refunds.
    ¶3             In 2009, Victim was notified that he owed approximately
    $14,000 for his 2007 taxes. Detective David Daniels of the City of Surprise
    Police Department investigated Victim’s 2007 tax returns. Detective
    Daniels testified that Victim’s wage information on the filings was correct,
    but several deductions on Victim’s tax returns were exaggerated. Another
    witness also testified that Defendant admitted to altering Victim’s tax
    returns in order to maximize the refunds.
    ¶4              Dawe was charged with four Counts: Count 1, fraudulent
    schemes and artifices, a class two felony; Count 2, theft, a class three felony;
    Count 3, fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class two felony; and Count 4,
    theft, a class three felony. The jury convicted Defendant on all four Counts.
    The trial court suspended imposition of sentencing, ordering five years’
    2
    STATE v. DAWE
    Decision of the Court
    probation as to all four Counts to run concurrently. As a condition of
    probation on Count 1, the court ordered Defendant to serve three months
    in the county jail. The court also imposed restitution in the amount of
    $14,418.89. 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, 13-4031, and -4033.A.1 (West 2015).1 Finding no reversible
    error, we affirm.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶5               “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in
    the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” State v. Powers, 
    200 Ariz. 123
    , 124, ¶ 2 (App. 2001). A reversal of a conviction based on
    insufficiency of evidence requires a clear showing that there was not
    sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion under any hypothesis
    whatsoever. See State v. Williams, 
    209 Ariz. 228
    , 231, ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting
    that it is the jury’s function, not the appellate courts, to weigh the evidence
    and determine credibility).
    ¶6            Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment charged Defendant with
    fraudulent schemes or artifices. Under A.R.S. § 13-2310.A, “[a]ny person
    who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any
    benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises
    or material omissions is guilty of a class 2 felony.” The State presented
    sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. The Victim,
    Detective Daniels, and other witnesses testified that Defendant provided
    false information on Victim’s State and Federal income tax returns, and the
    State and Federal tax refunds were deposited directly into Defendant’s
    bank account.
    ¶7            Counts 2 and 4 of the Indictment charged Defendant with
    theft. Under A.R.S. § 13-1802.A.1, “[a] person commits theft if, without
    lawful authority, the person knowingly . . . controls property of another
    with the intent to deprive the other person of such property[.]” Theft of
    property “with a value of four thousand dollars or more but less than
    twenty-five thousand dollars is a class 3 felony.” A.R.S. § 13-1802.G. The
    State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdicts for
    counts 2 and 4 and the finding of value over four thousand dollars. Victim
    1     We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions
    material to this decision have since occurred.
    3
    STATE v. DAWE
    Decision of the Court
    testified that Defendant received the tax refunds without his knowledge,
    and Defendant used the refunds to purchase a van.
    ¶8             At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found no prior
    convictions. The trial court’s suspension of imposition of sentence and
    order of probation was proper under A.R.S. §§ 13-901 and -902. Finally, the
    trial court ordered Defendant to pay restitution to Victim in the amount of
    $14,418.89, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-804.A. Because the trial court properly
    determined Defendant’s probation and restitution, the sentence was legal.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶9            We have read and considered counsel’s brief. We have
    carefully searched the entire appellate record for reversible error. See State
    v. Clark, 
    196 Ariz. 530
    , 541, ¶ 49 (App. 1999). All of the proceedings were
    conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    We find substantial evidence supported the jury’s guilty verdicts.
    Defendant was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the
    proceedings. At sentencing, Defendant and her counsel were given an
    opportunity to speak. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant’s
    convictions and sentence.
    ¶10            Counsel’s    obligations     pertaining     to     Defendant’s
    representation in this appeal have ended. See State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    ,
    584 (1984). Counsel need do nothing more than inform Defendant of the
    status of the appeal and her future options, unless Counsel’s review reveals
    an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by
    petition for review. See 
    id. at 585.
    Defendant shall have thirty days from
    the date of this decision to proceed, if she so desires, with an in propria
    persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
    :ama
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 15-0016

Filed Date: 2/16/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021