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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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. SITHISAY THAMMAKHANTY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0523 FILED 09-26-2024 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2023-113523-001 The Honorable Jacki Ireland, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee Michael J. Dew, Phoenix Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined.

STATE v. THAMMAKHANTY Decision of the Court T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant Sithisay Thammakhanty, has advised the court that, after searching the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law and asks the court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Thammakhanty was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. This court has reviewed the record and found no reversable error. Thus, Thammakhanty’s conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Thammakhanty was charged with Theft of Means of Transportation, a Class 3 felony, alleged to have been committed on March 29, 2023, in Scottsdale, Arizona. A jury found him guilty as charged. After Thammakhanty admitted a prior felony conviction, the court sentenced him as a category 2 repetitive offender to 4.5 years in prison, the minimum term.1 The court properly awarded Thammakhanty 288 days of presentence incarceration credit. This court has jurisdiction over Thammakhanty’s timely appeal under Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (2024).2 DISCUSSION ¶3 The record shows that Thammakhanty was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical stages. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. Apparently given the retirement of the judge who presided over trial, a different judge imposed a sentence without objection. The sentence imposed was within statutory limits. See A.R.S. § 13-703(I). And in all other respects, from the record presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

1 As a result of this conviction, the court also found Thammakhanty violated his probation for an earlier felony conviction, revoking his probation and sentencing him to a concurrent prison term in that matter. The probation revocation matter is not part of this appeal.

2 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

STATE v. THAMMAKHANTY Decision of the Court CONCLUSION ¶4 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has searched the record provided for reversable error and has found none. Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999).

Accordingly, Thammakhanty’s conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed.

¶5 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to inform Thammakhanty of the status of the appeal and of his future options.

Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Thammakhanty has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AGFV