State v. Hawthorne, 1 CA-CR 16-0038

Background

In July 2014 Hawthorne found an unmarked trailer with a flat tire in a resale/"lemon" lot on Luke AFB, observed it repeatedly, and later saw a tow/violation sticker placed on it.
He asked base offices about claiming it as abandoned; military personnel refused permission and referred him elsewhere; he did not obtain written authorization.
The next day Hawthorne cut the trailer hitch lock, towed the trailer home, repaired a tire, obtained temporary registration from a third-party MVD location, and stored the trailer and contents securely.
The owners reported the trailer stolen the following day; they had been using the lot while searching for housing and later filed a $50,000 insurance claim; Hawthorne returned the trailer after base security contacted him; nothing was missing.
A jury convicted Hawthorne of theft (charged as class 2) and theft of means of transportation; the jury assigned the theft valuation as "$3,000 or more, but less than $25,000." The superior court imposed two years’ probation and six months’ jail as a probation condition.
On appeal the State conceded classification error; the Court reclassified the theft conviction as a class 4 felony and remanded for resentencing but otherwise affirmed the convictions and sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the theft conviction was properly classified as class 2 based on value	State: classification must follow jury finding; defendant was convicted of theft charged as class 2	Hawthorne: jury verdict ($3,000–<$25,000) could support only lower class; argues sentencing error	Reversed as to classification: jury verdict did not support class 2 or class 3; reclassified to class 4 and remanded for resentencing
Sufficiency: whether evidence showed the trailer was stolen and Hawthorne knew or should have known	State: evidence (lack of authorization, warnings on abandoned-vehicle form, refusal by base personnel) supports both stolen status and defendant’s reason-to-know	Hawthorne: claimed good-faith belief in following abandoned-vehicle statutes; lack of authorization means no theft	Held: sufficient evidence; instructions and defendant’s actions gave reason to know; good-faith statutory belief not a defense to § 13-1802(A)(5) theft
Jury bias — alleged anti-military bias in panel	Hawthorne: jury lacked military experience, could be biased against military procedures	State: record shows at least one juror with military service; exclusion of military jurors would not violate impartial jury or equal protection	Held: no impermissible bias; one juror served in armed forces; no error in venue of jurors noted
Scope of fundamental-error review for issues not raised below	Hawthorne: claims raised only on appeal	State/Court: review limited to fundamental, prejudicial error under Henderson	Held: applied fundamental-error standard; only classification error required remedy; other claims lacked reversible fundamental error

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel filing a no-merit brief on appeal)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate-court obligations when counsel finds no nonfrivolous issues)
Leon v. Cochise County, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) (procedural guidance for reviewing counsel’s no-merit briefs in Arizona)
Henderson v. State, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for fundamental-error review)
Thues v. State, 203 Ariz. 339 (2002) (jury-found value controls felony classification; sentencing based on unsupported higher class is fundamental error)
Wolter v. State, 197 Ariz. 190 (App.) (jury must find value element that determines theft classification)
Morse v. State, 127 Ariz. 25 (1980) (ignorance of the law is no defense; theft by control does not require specific intent)
Burns v. State, 237 Ariz. 1 (2015) (discussion of impartial-jury principles and juror-exclusion issues)
Para v. State, 120 Ariz. 26 (App.) (possession/concealment after theft can support control-based theft theories)
Shattuck v. State, 140 Ariz. 582 (1984) (counsel’s post-appeal obligations to inform defendant and explain further review options)