From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Richey

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Oct 1, 2018
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0114 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0114

10-01-2018

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. KEITH EUGENE RICHEY, Appellant.

COUNSEL Emily Danies, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).

Appeal from the Superior Court in Gila County
No. S0400CR201700156
The Honorable Timothy M. Wright, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred.

BREARCLIFFE, Judge:

¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Keith Richey was convicted of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on a twenty-four-month term of probation. 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 "[n]o arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Richey has not filed a supplemental brief.

¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3405(A)(1), 13-3415(A). The evidence presented at trial showed Payson Police officers, who were executing a warrant on another matter, found Richey with a pipe used for marijuana in his pocket and discovered marijuana and other pipes in the room where he lived and also in a purse with his identification in it; Richey admitted the marijuana and pipes were his. We further conclude the term of probation is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-902(A)(4), 13-3405(B)(1), 13-3415(A).

¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Richey's convictions and term of probation are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Richey

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
Oct 1, 2018
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0114 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2018)
Case details for

State v. Richey

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. KEITH EUGENE RICHEY, Appellant.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO

Date published: Oct 1, 2018

Citations

No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0114 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2018)