Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0471
06-09-2016
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. HUGO ALFREDO ESTRADA-SOTO, Appellant.
COUNSEL Flores & Clark, PC, Globe By Daisy Flores 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. S1100CR201500772
The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Flores & Clark, PC, Globe
By Daisy Flores
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, Hugo Estrada-Soto was convicted of possession of methamphetarnine for sale and sentenced to a seven-year prison term. 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), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks this court to search the record for error. Estrada-Soto has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports it here. In October 2014, Estrada-Soto sold an informant just over three grams of methamphetarnine. A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6)(xxxviii), 13-3407(A)(2). His sentence is within the statutory range and was properly imposed. § 13-3407(E).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). Estrada-Soto's conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.