Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 17-0364
04-26-2018
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LILA VERONICA ENRIQUEZ, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix By Nicole Countryman Counsel for Appellant
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. V1300CR201680068
The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix
By Nicole Countryman
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge James P. Beene and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Lila Veronica Enriquez appeals her convictions and sentences for second degree trafficking in stolen property, possession of a dangerous drug, possession of marijuana, and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. Enriquez's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, counsel found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Enriquez was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Clarkdale police set up a controlled buy of an item for sale on an online marketplace. The item, a motorcycle jack, was identified by a burglary victim as recently stolen from his house. The victim identified the jack as his by brand and because it was missing a handle, which had not been stolen.
¶3 An officer posing as a buyer met the seller, Enriquez, at her house to purchase the jack. The officer asked Enriquez where she got the jack and whether it had a handle. Enriquez said the jack belonged to her and her son and did not have a handle. Once the officer purchased the jack, Enriquez was arrested. In a search incident to arrest, an officer found three small bags of methamphetamine and a small bag of marijuana in Enriquez's pockets.
¶4 Enriquez voluntarily spoke with officers after being advised of her Miranda rights. Enriquez first told officers that the jack belonged to her son. She then claimed that a friend, who she knew to be a thief, "gave it to [her] to get rid of." Finally, she told officers that her son had acquired the jack from the known thief in exchange for drugs.
¶5 The State charged Enriquez with the offenses detailed above. Enriquez's counsel then filed a motion to suppress, arguing that police officers lacked probable cause to arrest Enriquez. After conducting a suppression hearing, the superior court denied the motion.
¶6 A jury convicted Enriquez as charged. She admitted two historical prior felony convictions as part of a plea agreement on separate charges. The superior court sentenced Enriquez as a category 3 repetitive offender to concurrent, presumptive terms of imprisonment, the greatest of which is 11.25 years, with credit for 40 days of presentence incarceration.
DISCUSSION
¶7 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.
¶8 Enriquez was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against her. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Enriquez all her constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Enriquez's sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
CONCLUSION
¶9 Enriquez's convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Enriquez's representation in this appeal will end after informing Enriquez of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Enriquez has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).