Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0187
03-22-2024
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesus Victor Guzman, Appellant.
The Susser Law Firm PLLC, Chandler By Adam Susser Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2020001862001DT The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge
The Susser Law Firm PLLC, Chandler By Adam Susser Counsel for Appellant
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Sklar and Judge O'Neil concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, VICE CHIEF JUDGE
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Jesus Guzman was convicted of involving or using a minor in a drug offense, a class two felony and dangerous crime against children. The trial court sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.
¶2 On appeal, counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asserting he "has thoroughly searched the record" and "has found no arguable question of law that is either not frivolous or that has not already been resolved against [Guzman]." Consistent with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), counsel has provided a factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record and has asked this court to search the record for reversible error. Guzman has not filed a supplemental brief.
Although counsel's brief cites the record on appeal, he fails to provide pincites and instead cites to the entirety of the trial transcripts. We urge counsel to include more specific citations in the future. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.10(a)(7)(A) (requiring opening brief's argument section to include "appropriate references to the portions of the record" relied upon).
¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the verdict, see State v. Holle, 240 Ariz. 300, ¶ 2 (2016), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3405(A), 13-3409(A)(2). In March 2019, Guzman gave his then twelve-year-old daughter marijuana, which she smoked. The sentence imposed is within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-705(E), 13-3409(B).
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Guzman's conviction and sentence.