Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0253
02-05-2019
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DONALD DONOVAN, Appellant.
COUNSEL Gail Gianasi Natale, Phoenix 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Cochise County
No. CR201600874
The Honorable Wallace R. Hoggatt, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Gail Gianasi Natale, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Espinosa concurred. ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 Following a jury trial, Donald Donovan was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug, possession of a narcotic drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive sentences, the longer of which are ten years. Counsel filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating she has reviewed the record and found no arguable question of law to raise on appeal. She asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Donovan has not filed a supplemental brief.
In addition, the trial court granted a directed verdict as to one count, and the jury could not reach a decision on three counts and acquitted Donovan on two other counts.
Although counsel included a recitation of the facts related to Donovan's pretrial motions, she did not provide a recitation of the facts supporting his convictions, nor did she provide appropriate citations to the record as required by Rule 31.10(a)(6), Ariz. R. Crim. P.; see also State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶¶ 30, 32 (App. 1999) (Anders brief should contain "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."). Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. --------
¶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), (20)(ttt), (21)(m), 13-3407(A)(1), (B)(1), 13-3408(A)(1), (B)(1), 13-3415(A). In October 2016, pursuant to a search warrant for the residence where Donovan was staying, officers found heroin, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia, including syringes, cotton balls, and spoons with residue in the room where Donovan slept. Donovan told one of the officers the drugs belonged to him. The sentences were within the statutory range and were lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J).
¶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 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Donovan's convictions and sentences.