State v. Thammakhanty

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

2
 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

3