Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 18-0471
12-05-2019
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. BENJAMIN FELIX FIGUEROA, Appellant.
COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee Law Office of Alane M. Ortega PLLC, Phoenix By Alane M. Ortega Counsel for Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2015-111809-001
The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Joseph T. Maziarz
Counsel for Appellee
Law Office of Alane M. Ortega PLLC, Phoenix
By Alane M. Ortega
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.
SWANN, Chief Judge:
¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), from Benjamin Felix Figueroa's convictions and sentences for possession of dangerous drugs for sale and misconduct involving weapons. Neither Figueroa nor his counsel identify any issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record for fundamental error. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). We find none.
¶2 Figueroa was charged and tried for one count of possession of dangerous drugs for sale and one count of misconduct involving weapons. At trial, the state presented evidence of the following facts. On March 12, 2013, a police SWAT unit executed a search warrant on Figueroa's home. Once inside, officers found an interior and exterior video surveillance system connected to a monitor in the home's office area, where Figueroa was located. A search of the office revealed bagged methamphetamine and loose white crystals, multiple firearms, multiple digital scales, a safe, and numerous plastic baggies.
¶3 The jury convicted Figueroa on both counts, and the court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 8 years for the drug offense and 1.5 years for the misconduct involving weapons offense.
¶4 We detect no fundamental error. Though Figueroa was not present during his trial, he had been advised that he was required to appear at all proceedings and that proceedings could go forward in his absence, and he was present at the pretrial hearing setting the final date and time for trial. The superior court therefore reasonably proceeded with trial in Figueroa's absence. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 9.1. Figueroa was later arrested and was present for sentencing.
¶5 The jury was properly comprised under A.R.S. § 21-102 and was properly instructed. The jury's verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence. As to the drug conviction, "[a] person shall not knowingly . . .
[p]ossess a dangerous drug for sale." A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(2). Methamphetamine is a "dangerous drug." A.R.S. § 13-3401(6)(b)(xxxviii). Here, the state's evidence established that Figueroa possessed in his office loose and bagged methamphetamine as well as multiple firearms, digital scales, a safe, and numerous plastic baggies—items that a detective testified are used in the sale of drugs. As to the misconduct involving weapons conviction, "[a] person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly . . . [u]sing or possessing a deadly weapon during the commission of any felony offense included in chapter 34" of Title 13, a chapter that includes § 13-3401. A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(8). A firearm is a deadly weapon. A.R.S. § 13-105(15). The state's evidence regarding the firearms found in the office was sufficient to establish Figueroa's guilt for misconduct involving weapons. The court imposed lawful sentences for both offenses under A.R.S. §§ 13-3407(E), -3102(M), and -702(D).
¶6 We affirm. Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to this appeal have come to an end. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Unless, upon review, counsel discovers an issue appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court, counsel must only inform Figueroa of the status of this appeal and his future options. Id. Figueroa has 30 days from the date of this decision to file a petition for review in propria persona. See Rule 31.21(b)(2)(A). Upon the court's own motion, Figueroa has 30 days from the date of this decision in which to file a motion for reconsideration. See Rule 31.20(c).