Opinion
2 CA-CR 2022-0123
07-10-2023
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. William Laroy Davis, Appellant.
Janelle A. Mc Eachern, Chandler Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County No. S0200CR202100124 The Honorable Timothy Dickerson, Judge
Janelle A. Mc Eachern, Chandler Counsel for Appellant
Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KELLY, JUDGE
¶1 After a trial on the record, William Davis was convicted of transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a narcotic drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him, as a category three repetitive offender, to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which is twenty years.
¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no arguable issues to raise. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, counsel has provided a "procedural history of the case, with citations to the record," and has asked this court to search the record for reversible error. Davis has filed a supplemental brief, raising claims of Fourth Amendment and speedy trial violations, claims from unrelated criminal cases, and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Counsel's brief fails to include the factual background supporting Davis's convictions, also required by Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30. Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. We caution counsel to comply with the requirements for an Anders brief in the future.
Based on the record before us, Davis was sentenced to over forty years of concurrent and consecutive prison terms in cause numbers CR201200365, CR201200366, CR201300166, and CR201300167. The trial court in this case ordered his prison sentence to "begin upon the completion of any sentence for which [Davis] was on parole, or otherwise had time remaining to serve on the date of the new offenses."
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the verdicts, see State v. Miles, 211 Ariz. 475, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6)(c)(xxxviii), (20)(ww), 13-3407(A)(1), (7), 13-3408(A)(1), 13-3415(A). One morning in January 2021, an officer found Davis sleeping in his car, which was parked at a carwash, and observed in the center console next to him a hypodermic needle, a butane torch, and a black pouch. After being awoken, Davis consented to a search of his car, and officers found two baggies of methamphetamine, .34 and 17.6 grams respectively, and a glass vial of .72 grams of methamphetamine in the black pouch, as well as a digital scale with a crystalline residue in a separate backpack. During a search of Davis incident to his arrest, officers found two fentanyl pills in his front pants pocket, and Davis later admitted to being a methamphetamine "user."
Officers failed to collect the scale for testing.
¶4 The record supports the trial court's finding that Davis had at least two historical prior felony convictions. See A.R.S. § 13-105(22). The sentences imposed are within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-708(C), 13-3407(B), 13-3408(B), 13-3415(A). We have reviewed the arguments Davis identified in his supplemental brief and have concluded none are arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012).
¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Davis identified in his supplemental brief, and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Davis's convictions and sentences.