STATE OF ARIZONA v. WILLIAM SCHAEFFLER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 MAY 30 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM SCHAEFFLER, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0456 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20120882002 Honorable Michael O. Miller, Judge AFFIRMED Emily Danies Tucson Attorney for Appellant K E L L Y, Judge. ¶1 Appellant William Schaeffler was convicted after a jury trial of second- degree burglary and criminal damage. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence, placed him on concurrent terms of probation for a period of three years, and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,361.60. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found [n]o arguable question of law to raise on appeal. She asks us to search the record for fundamental error. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and we conclude it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Schaeffler has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in February 2012, the victim returned home to find a large hole in the wall near the front door of her home. Schaeffler acknowledged to police that he and a friend had entered the home without the owner s permission and damaged it. Inside, the victim discovered extensive vandalism, including a broken light fixture, mirror and television, smashed drywall with holes kicked in, and broken eggs strewn throughout the house. The victim testified the repairs to her home cost $8,000 and that the missing and damaged items were worth $1,800. We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of the elements necessary for Schaeffler s convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1507, 131602(A), (B)(3), and the probation imposed is an authorized disposition, see A.R.S. § 13902(A)(2), (4). 2 ¶4 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Therefore, we affirm Schaeffler s convictions and disposition. /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
