Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0152
11-20-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMIEN BLAKE OLAGUE, Appellant.
COUNSEL Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Lisa M. Hise, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20133903001
The Honorable Richard D. Nichols, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Lisa M. Hise, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Howard concurred.
VÁSQUEZ, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Damien Olague was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and aggravated assault of a peace officer. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Olague on probation for a three-year term. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no "arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal." Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks this court to search the record for error. Olague has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1204(A)(8), 13-3407(A)(1), 13-3415(A). In sum, when a Tucson police officer responded to a report of a possible drug overdose in a local park, Tucson Fire Department personnel already were attending Olague and reported his vital signs were normal. But when the officer told Olague he was not suffering from a drug overdose, Olague removed a plastic bag containing methamphetamine from his wallet, threw it on a picnic table, and said, "[W]hat's that then?" When the officer told him he was under arrest, Olague stood up quickly and struck the officer in the face, causing him a bloody nose and abrasions on the outside and inside of his lip.
¶3 We further conclude the term of Olague's probation is authorized by statute, and his probation was imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(I), 13-902(A)(3), 13-3407(C).
¶4 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no fundamental or reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Olague's convictions and the probation terms imposed.