Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

C R U Z , Judge:

¶1 This appeal was filed in accordance with Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Luis Alberto Santos has advised this court that counsel found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Santos was convicted of one count of forgery, a class 4 felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. After reviewing the record, we affirm Santos’ convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the

convictions and resolve all reasonable inferences against Santos. See State v. Fontes , 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). On July 16, 2019, a Prescott police officer on patrol observed

Santos walking in a park at around 1:00 a.m. The park was closed. The officer began a conversation with Santos. He asked Santos if he had any illegal items on his person and Santos replied that he did not. The officer asked Santos if he would consent to a search, and Santos agreed. The officer found a methamphetamine pipe in Santos’ left pocket and a fake so cial security card in his wallet. Santos told the officer that the social security card was fake and that he used it for work. A grand jury indicted Santos on one count of forgery, a class

4 felony (count 1); one count of possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine), a class 4 felony (count 2); and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony (count 3). Santos moved to dismiss count 2, the State did not object, and the superior court dismissed count 2 without prejudice. A jury convicted Santos of counts 1 and 3. Santos waived a presentence report. The superior court

suspended the imposition of sentencing, placed Santos on supervised probation with a jail term of 399 days, gave him credit for 399 days of presentence incarceration, and terminated the probation. *3 Santos timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to

Arizona Constitution Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A), 13-4031, and -4033(A).

DISCUSSION We review Santos’ convictions and sentences for fundamental

error. See State v. Flores , 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for Santos has advised this court that after a diligent search of the record counsel has found no arguable questions of law. We have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, counsel represented Santos at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We affirm Santos’ convictions and sentences. Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform

Santos of the status of the appeal and his future options. Counsel has no further obligations, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Santos shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Santos’ convictions and

sentences.