NOTICE: 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
FILED BY CLERK
SEP 26 2011
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION TWO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF ARIZONA
DIVISION TWO
THE STATE OF ARIZONA,
Appellee,
v.
EMMANUEL DEMITRIUS MCKINNEY,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2 CA-CR 2011-0131
DEPARTMENT B
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20103000001
Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge
Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge
AFFIRMED
Robert J. Hirsh, Pima County Public Defender
By David J. Euchner
V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge.
Tucson
Attorneys for Appellant
¶1
Appellant Emmanuel McKinney was convicted after a jury trial of second-
degree burglary and possession of burglary tools. After he admitted having two historical
prior felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to enhanced, substantially
mitigated, concurrent prison terms of 7.5 and 2.25 years. Counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), State v. Nash, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz.
530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has found no “arguably meritorious” issue to raise
and requests that we “search the record for error.”
McKinney has not filed a
supplemental brief.
¶2
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts.
See State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 912, 914 (2005). So viewed, the
evidence, including the testimony of a neighbor who witnessed the incident and police
officers who had been involved in McKinney’s arrest, established McKinney, with the
intent to commit a theft or felony, had entered the victims’ home by breaking a window
with a rock, thereby committing the offense of second-degree burglary in violation of
A.R.S. § 13-1507. The evidence also established McKinney had possessed burglary
tools, specifically gloves he intended to use or used when committing the burglary, in
violation of A.R.S. § 13-1505(A)(1) and (C). The record establishes prison terms were
lawful, that is, within the statutory parameters, and were imposed in a lawful manner.
2
¶3
We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and have found
none. Therefore, we affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed.
/s/ Garye L. Vásquez
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/ Philip G. Espinosa
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
/s/ Virginia C. Kelly
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge
3
