Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0399
06-17-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. REY DAVID AGUIRRE, Appellant.
Ronald Zack, PLC, Tucson Deconcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, P.C., Tucson By Ronald Zack 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. CR20120302001
The Honorable Christopher Browning, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Ronald Zack, PLC, Tucson
Deconcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, P.C., Tucson
By Ronald Zack
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Brammer concurred. KELLY, Presiding Judge:
The Hon. J. William Brammer, Jr., a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court.
¶1 Rey Aguirre was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy, illegally conducting an enterprise, transporting more than two pounds of marijuana for sale, two counts of transporting less than two pounds of marijuana for sale, two counts of money laundering, and thirty-three counts of use of a wire or electronic communication in drug-related transactions. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive and concurrent, slightly mitigated and presumptive prison sentences totaling 10.5 years, to be followed by seven years' probation.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing he has reviewed the record and found "[n]o arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record." Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel's recitation of the facts. Aguirre has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdicts, see State v. Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. 356, ¶ 2, 186 P.3d 33, 34 (App. 2008), the evidence established that, between December 2011 and January 2012, pursuant to a drug-trafficking investigation, officers intercepted several cellular telephone conversations and text messages between Aguirre, his co-defendant, and other individuals, related to the shipment of drugs from Tucson to various locations, including Rhode Island and Florida. The conversations included details regarding packaging, tracking, shipment, and payments for the shipments. At least one of the seized packages contained marijuana weighing more than two pounds. We conclude substantial evidence supported all the elements necessary for Aguirre's convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1003, 13-3405(A)(4), (B)(10), (B)(11), 13-2312, 13-2317(B), (E), 13-2301(D)(4)(b)(xi), (xxvi), 13-3417, 13-3001(1), (4), (14), and the sentences and terms of probation are within the prescribed statutory range and were imposed lawfully, see A.R.S. §§ 13-702, 13-703(1), 13-3419, 13-902.
We refer to the version of the statutes in effect at the time of Aguirre's offenses.
We note the trial court misspoke when it stated at the sentencing hearing that counts three, four and twenty-eight "run consecutive to each other." The record is clear that the court intended to say that the sentence imposed for count twenty-three, rather than count twenty-eight, shall be served consecutively to those imposed for counts three and four.
--------
¶4 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Aguirre's convictions and the sentences and terms of probation imposed.