STATE OF ARIZONA v. JUSTIN LEE SPARKS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JUSTIN LEE SPARKS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0407 Filed September 18, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20134282001 The Honorable Danelle B. Liwski, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Steven R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By Frank P. Leto, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. SPARKS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Miller and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Justin Sparks was convicted after a jury trial of theft of a means of transportation and third-degree burglary. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Sparks on concurrent, four-year terms of probation for each offense. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record” and asks this court to search the record for error. Sparks has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdicts here. In September 2013, Sparks took the victim’s truck without permission, abandoning it a few days later. See A.R.S. §§ 131506(A)(1), 13-1814(A)(1). The terms of his probation are authorized by statute and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13901(A), (B), 13-902(A)(2), (3), 13-1506(B), 13-1814(D). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Sparks’s convictions and disposition. 2

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.