Opinion
1 CA-CR 12-0385
05-28-2013
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MATTHEW MARK HALBIRT, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2011-131063-002
The Honorable Kristin C. Hoffman, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General
By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel
Criminal Appeals Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix James Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
By Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix CATTANI, Judge ¶1 Matthew Mark Halbirt appeals his conviction of one count of possession of dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony, and the resulting sentence. Halbirt's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Halbirt was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Halbirt's conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Halbirt. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998).
¶2 Late one evening in September 2010, a Scottsdale Police Officer on patrol at a north Scottsdale gas station observed two individuals -- Halbirt and a woman -- behaving suspiciously. The officer followed as the two got into the woman's car and drove out of the parking lot. Observing a traffic violation, the officer stopped the car. When the officer turned on his patrol car's emergency lights, the officer observed Halbirt, seated in the front passenger seat of the car, "looking around frantically . . . [and] mak[ing] downward reaching movements . . . toward underneath the seat of the front passenger's seat." ¶3 The officer searched the car, which was registered to the woman, and discovered an empty cigarette package underneath the front passenger seat "[i]n the area where [Halbirt] was reaching prior to being stopped." That package enclosed a clear plastic bag containing a "white crystal-like substance," which later testing showed to contain methamphetamine. ¶4 Halbirt was arrested and charged with one count of possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine). After a two-day trial, a jury found Halbirt guilty as charged. The court found six prior felony convictions and that Halbirt had committed the offense while on release from confinement. The court sentenced Halbirt to the presumptive term of ten years' incarceration with 72 days' presentence incarceration credit. ¶5 Halbirt timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).
Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.
--------
DISCUSSION
¶6 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have reviewed the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. ¶7 Halbirt was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Halbirt all his rights under the constitution and our statutes, and that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. Halbirt's sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration. Halbirt's conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.
CONCLUSION
¶8 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Halbirt's representation in this appeal will end after informing Halbirt of the outcome of this appeal and his future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Halbirt shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
______________
KENT E. CATTANI, Judge
CONCURRING: ______________
PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge
______________
PETER B. SWANN, Judge