Opinion
1 CA-CR 23-0279
03-21-2024
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSE CARRILLO, Appellant.
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale By Stephen L. Duncan Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR202080004 The Honorable Debra R. Phelan, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Alice Jones Counsel for Appellee
Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan PLC, Scottsdale By Stephen L. Duncan Counsel for Appellant
Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
HOWE, JUDGE
¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Jose Carrillo has advised this court that she has found no arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Carrillo was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm his convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Carrillo. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998). R.S. and Carrillo were engaged and share a child. After their relationship ended, R.S. petitioned for and the superior court granted an order of protection against Carrillo. Then, in August 2019 Carrillo came to her house and "pound[ed]" on the door for "at least 10 to 15 minutes." Because of the extensive banging, R.S. told her grandmother, who was in the house at the time, to call the police, which she did. Carrillo left before the police arrived at house. The responding officer interviewed both R.S. and her grandmother.
¶3 In September 2019, a Yavapai County deputy noticed Carrillo in a parking lot in the area the deputy was patrolling. Knowing that Carrillo was wanted for violating an order of protection the month before, the deputy arrested him. The deputy conducted a custodial search on Carrillo and found in his pockets a glass pipe and a clear plastic bag that contained methamphetamine.
¶4 The State charged Carrillo with one count of aggravated assault, a class 6 felony; one count of possession or use of dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony; one count of possession or use of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony; and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, class 6 felonies. Before trial, the State moved to dismiss the count of possession or use of narcotic drugs and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The court granted the motion and dismissed the charges. The State also alleged four prior felony convictions, which it intended to also use as aggravating factors under A.R.S. § 13-701(D).
¶5 At trial, R.S. and her grandmother testified that Carrillo had come to the house and had pounded on the door. Carrillo asserted that he did not violate the protective order. He testified that, although he was in the neighborhood to help a friend, he did not go to R.S.'s home. As to the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found on him, he admitted that he knowingly possessed them. He also admitted that he had prior felony convictions.
¶6 The jury found Carrillo not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of possession or use of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court then held a hearing for the State on the alleged historical prior felony convictions. The court found that the State had proved two historical prior felony convictions. The court weighed the aggravating factors-Carrillo's prior convictions within 10 years-against the mitigating factors-his age and family support. The court thus sentenced Carrillo to the presumptive term of 10 years' imprisonment for possession or use of dangerous drugs, and to a concurrent term of 3.75 years' imprisonment for possession of drug paraphernalia. He was awarded 31 days of presentence incarceration credit.
DISCUSSION
¶7 We review Carrillo's convictions and sentences for fundamental error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512 ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for Carrillo has advised this court that after a diligent search of the entire record, counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have read and considered counsel's brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Arizona Rules of Evidence, and constitutional requirements. The sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We decline to order briefing and affirm Carrillo's convictions and sentences.
¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Carrillo of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Carrillo shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
CONCLUSION
¶9 We affirm.