Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0394
10-18-2017
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GRACIELA CASTRO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Rowley Long & Simmons PLLC, Mesa By Matthew S. Long 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CR201601403
The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Rowley Long & Simmons PLLC, Mesa
By Matthew S. Long
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Howard concurred. STARING, Presiding Judge:
The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. --------
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Graciela Castro was convicted of transportation of a dangerous drug for sale. The trial court sentenced her to a minimum, five-year prison term and ordered her to pay a fine of $150,000. Avowing he has found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal, appointed counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asking this court to review the record for fundamental error. Castro has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in May 2016, an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer stopped a vehicle in which Castro was the front-seat passenger for a windshield obstruction violation. The driver agreed to let the officer search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of eight pounds of methamphetamine under the rear passenger floorboard carpet. When questioned by police at the scene and later at the police station, Castro gave changing and inconsistent accounts about accompanying the driver from California to Tucson. We conclude substantial evidence supported Castro's conviction, see A.R.S. §§ 13-301(2), 13-3401(36)(e), 13-3407(A)(7), and the sentence was lawful and was imposed properly, see A.R.S. §§ 13-801(A), 13-3407(E), (H).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Castro's conviction and sentence.