Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0103
04-04-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. STANLEY BOYD COLLINS JR., Appellant.
COUNSEL Michael Villarreal, Florence 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CR201700270
The Honorable Joseph R. Georgini, Judge
AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED
COUNSEL Michael Villarreal, Florence
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial in absentia, appellant Stanley Collins Jr. was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court found he had more than four historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him to concurrent, "mitigated" prison terms, the longest of which is 7.5 years. Counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), asserting he reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, counsel has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks us to search the record for fundamental or reversible error. Collins has not filed a supplemental brief.
After counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders, we noted the record did not contain the transcript of the prior convictions trial or the exhibits from that proceeding. We ordered those items be filed with the court and gave counsel the opportunity to file a new Anders brief or a merits brief. Counsel filed an amended Anders brief, again finding no "arguable" issues on appeal. --------
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6)(c)(xxxviii), 13-3405(A)(1), 13-3407(A)(1), (B)(1), 13-3415(A). In January 2017, a police officer contacted Collins related to a welfare check based on a report that a vehicle, in which Collins was the sole occupant, had driven off the road with its lights on. Pursuant to what began as a consensual search of his person, officers discovered pipes in Collins's pants pocket, one of which he identified as a "weed pipe"; multiple plastic baggies with marijuana, a baggie and a pouch with methamphetamine on his person; and, pipes and a baggie with methamphetamine in the rental vehicle. We also conclude the state properly alleged Collins had historical prior felony convictions and the sentences imposed are within the statutory limits for a category three offender and were lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J).
¶3 In our review of the record pursuant to Anders, we noted that, although the trial court found Collins had more than four historical prior felony convictions, the written judgment characterizes the offenses as "nonrepetitive." We thus correct the sentencing order, pursuant to § 13-703(C), to reflect all three counts are repetitive, as reflected in the sentencing transcript as well as in the sentences imposed. See State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, ¶ 38 (2013) (discrepancy between oral pronouncement of sentence and written minute entry generally controlled by oral pronouncement and reviewing court will correct minute entry if record clearly identifies intended sentence).
¶4 In our examination of the record, we have found no fundamental or reversible error and no non-frivolous issue warranting further appellate review. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Collins's convictions and sentences but correct the sentencing order to reflect that all three counts are repetitive rather than nonrepetitive offenses.