Opinion
1 CA-CR 23-0133
12-14-2023
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. NICHOLE RENEE RATHMAN, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee Jill L. Evans Attorney at Law, Flagstaff By Jill L. Evans Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015CR202200248 The Honorable Billy K. Sipe Jr., Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee
Jill L. Evans Attorney at Law, Flagstaff By Jill L. Evans Counsel for Appellant
Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
CATLETT, Judge:
¶1 Nichole Renee Rathman ("Rathman") appeals her conviction and resulting sentence for possession of dangerous drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, and disorderly conduct. Counsel for Rathman filed a brief per 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. Rathman was permitted to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks this Court to search the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm the conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Rathman's neighbor called the police after recording her fighting outside with other individuals in a domestic dispute. An officer arrived and began speaking with Rathman, who acknowledged she had a gun in the purse. Rathman was arrested, and when searching her purse, officers found a container with .45 grams of methamphetamine in one of the folds. The State charged Rathman with possession of dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony, possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, and disorderly conduct, a class 1 misdemeanor.
¶3 The jury returned a guilty verdict on the felony charges, and after a bench trial the court found Rathman guilty on the misdemeanor charge. She had no prior offenses, and no aggravating circumstances were alleged. The court sentenced Rathman to three years' probation for possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia, with credit for one day served in incarceration, along with fines and surcharges. The court did not include any punishment for disorderly conduct. Two weeks after being sentenced, Rathman violated her probation and was charged with a separate offense. When Rathman agreed to a plea deal, the court reinstated her probation for three years but revised the expiration date. Rathman timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§ 134031 and 13-4033(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶4 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.
¶5 Rathman was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Rathman all her constitutional and statutory rights and conducted the proceedings following the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The evidence presented sufficiently supported the jury's verdict and the court's ruling. The court's sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration. The post-trial proceedings complied with applicable law.
CONCLUSION
¶6 We affirm Rathman's conviction and sentence. Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Rathman's representation in this appeal will end after informing Rathman of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).