Opinion
1 CA-CR 12-0544
05-16-2013
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MEADOW LEE AGUIRRE, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General by Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Bruce Peterson, Maricopa County Legal Advocate by Kerri L. Chamberlin, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2011-154105-001
The Honorable Christine E. Mulleneaux, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
by Joseph T. Maziarz, Acting Chief Counsel,
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix Bruce Peterson, Maricopa County Legal Advocate
by Kerri L. Chamberlin, Deputy Legal Advocate
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix PORTLEY, Judge ¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Meadow Lee Aguirre has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant did not take the opportunity to file a supplemental brief.
FACTS
We view the facts "in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant." State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89, 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997).
¶2 Defendant was a passenger in a pickup truck that was stopped on October 19, 2011, by the police. She was placed in handcuffs in the back of the patrol car and read her Miranda rights. ¶3 The police were going to release her but wanted to ensure her identity. As her purse was being retrieved from the truck, the detective noticed a knife and removed it for officer safety. The officer also smelled marijuana emanating from the purse, removed a wallet and found a small bag of what was later determined to be marijuana. Defendant stated that she smokes marijuana but that the small baggie was not "dope." She was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, both class six felonies. ¶4 The State successfully requested that both charges be reduced to misdemeanors, and the matter proceeded as a bench trial. At the outset of trial and after a hearing, the court denied Defendant's motion to suppress statements made before her Miranda rights were read to her. After the evidence was presented, the court found Defendant guilty on both counts. Subsequently, imposition of sentence was suspended and Defendant was placed on twelve months of unsupervised probation. ¶5 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (West 2013).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
--------
DISCUSSION
¶6 We have read and considered the opening brief. We have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find no reversible error. ¶7 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. There was a plea offer and the court explained the nature of the plea to the Defendant. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to suppress statements. The evidence supported the verdicts. The sentence was statutorily required for a first time offense for the possession of marijuana. ¶8 After this decision is filed, counsel's obligation to represent Defendant in this appeal has ended. Counsel must only inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and Defendant's future options, unless counsel identifies an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Defendant may, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
CONCLUSION
¶9 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant's misdemeanor convictions and her suspended sentence of unsupervised probation.
_________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge
CONCURRING: _________________
MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge
_________________
PHILIP HALL, Judge