Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0861
12-08-2015
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ALLEN CARMEN FRYE, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Terry J. Adams 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Maricopa County
No. CR2013-436204-001
The Honorable Phemonia L. Miller, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Terry J. Adams
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.
CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 Allen Carmen Frye appeals his convictions of possession of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia and the resulting sentences. Frye'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, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Frye was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Frye's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 One night in July 2012, a Phoenix police officer saw Frye riding a bicycle without a headlight. The officer stopped Frye, asked him why he did not have a headlight, and also asked him if he had anything in his pockets. The officer heard a "clink of glass" as Frye removed items from his pockets and asked Frye if he would let the officer check his pocket. Frye agreed, and the officer found a glass pipe of a type that is used to smoke methamphetamine. Frye admitted to having smoked methamphetamine. He was arrested, and in a subsequent search, the officer found a bag with a white crystalline substance.
¶3 Frye was charged with possession of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. After Frye failed to appear at a change of plea hearing, a bench warrant was issued. He did not appear for trial, which proceeded in his absence.
¶4 A criminalist testified that the substance in the bag the officer found was not methamphetamine, but that there was a useable quantity of methamphetamine in Frye's pipe. The jury found Frye guilty on both charges.
¶5 Frye was subsequently located and arrested, and the court, on defense counsel's motion, conducted a Rule 11 hearing to determine if Frye was competent to be sentenced. After considering medical reports on Frye's mental health, the court found that Frye was competent.
¶6 At sentencing, Frye stipulated to five historical prior felony convictions. The court sentenced him to a mitigated seven-year prison term for possession of a dangerous drug and to a concurrent, mitigated three
year-term for possession of drug paraphernalia, with credit for 189 days of presentence incarceration. Frye timely appealed.
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 Frye was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. Although Frye was not present at trial, when he was released prior to trial, he was advised that the proceedings would go forward in his absence if he did not appear. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Frye all his 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 and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Frye's sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Frye's representation will end after informing Frye of the outcome of this appeal and his 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). Frye shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶10 Frye's convictions and sentences are affirmed.