Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0753
01-23-2020
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAMES TRECE CAMERON, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Jeffrey L. Force Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2015-005573-001
The Honorable Frank W. Moskowitz, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Jeffrey L. Force
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined. CATTANI, Judge:
¶1 James Trece Cameron appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of narcotic drugs for sale, possession of dangerous drugs for sale, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Cameron's counsel filed a brief in accordance with 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, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Cameron was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Cameron's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Phoenix Police officers observed Cameron and a woman driving away from a residence on which the officers were preparing to execute a search warrant. Officers stopped the car, and Cameron confirmed the location of his bedroom in the house and admitted that he had a handgun on his nightstand. Additionally, one of Cameron's cell phones had text messages that officers interpreted as related to drug sales. One of the text conversations referred to providing "four" to another person, consistent with the four chunks of a substance later confirmed to be heroin that were found on the woman accompanying Cameron.
¶3 Officers searching Cameron's bedroom found a handgun on his nightstand, and they found a small lockbox inside a safe in a dresser-drawer in his closet. A key that Cameron had been carrying with him opened the lock to the small lockbox, and officers found plastic bags containing over 18 grams of heroin and over 50 grams of methamphetamine.
¶4 The State charged Cameron with possession of narcotic drugs for sale (heroin), possession of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), and possession of drug paraphernalia. After multiple rounds of Rule 11 proceedings and multiple changes of counsel, the superior court found that Cameron knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and allowed him to represent himself at trial with the assistance of advisory counsel.
The indictment also alleged two other charges that were ultimately dismissed. One charge—use of wire communication or electronic communication in a drug-related transaction, A.R.S. § 13-3417—was dismissed before trial on the State's motion. The other—misconduct involving weapons by using or possessing a deadly weapon during a felony drug offense, A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(8)—was dismissed on the State's motion after the jury found Cameron guilty of a different, uncharged type of misconduct involving weapons: prohibited possessor. See A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(4). --------
¶5 A jury found Cameron guilty of the charges outlined above, and further found multiple aggravating circumstances applicable to each sale offense. The superior court sentenced Cameron to concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which is a maximum term of 15 calendar years for the methamphetamine offense, with credit for 1073 days of presentence incarceration. Cameron timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
¶6 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.
¶7 Cameron was present and represented by counsel, or represented himself with the assistance of advisory counsel, at all stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Cameron all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Cameron's sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with sufficient credit given for presentence incarceration.
CONCLUSION
¶8 Cameron's convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Cameron's representation in this appeal will end after informing Cameron of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Cameron has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.