Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 11-0210
06-05-2012
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CATHY LYNN HUFFMAN, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender Attorney 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(Not for Publication - Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)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 Mohave County
Cause No. S8015CR201000514
The Honorable Lee F. Jantzen, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix
Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender
Attorney for Appellant
Kingman GOULD, Judge
¶1 Cathy Lynn Advocate ("Defendant") appeals from her convictions and resulting sentences for one count of possession of a dangerous drug methamphetamine for sale, and one count of possession of methamphetamine paraphernalia.
¶2 Defendant'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), advising this court that after a search of the entire appellate record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Defendant was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but she has not done so.
¶3 Our obligation in this appeal is to review "the entire record for reversible error." State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). 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) (2003), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (2010). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have occurred.
Facts and Procedural History
We view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the conviction. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 435, ¶ 2 n.1, 94 P.3d 1119, 1130 n.1 (2004).
¶4 On May 20, 2010, police executed a search warrant at Defendant's home. During the search, Defendant told an officer she was aware that a pipe used to smoke methamphetamine was located in her kitchen. The officer found the pipe and a propane torch nozzle in the kitchen. Officers also found a tub of MSM in a kitchen cabinet and $692 cash and a large amount of small Ziploc baggies in Defendant's purse. Towards the end of the search, Defendant picked up a small black pouch and threw it at an officer saying "here." The black pouch contained a white crystal substance in a plastic bag; the crystal substance was later discovered to be 12.5 grams of methamphetamine.
MSM is a supplement used to treat joint pain in livestock animals such as horses or cows. It is also used as a cutting agent to dilute methamphetamine for sale.
¶5 While the police were searching the home and questioning the individuals found in the home, Defendant's cell phone received a call. An officer answered Defendant's phone and spoke with a person identifying herself only as "I" who asked to speak with Defendant about buying a "$40 bag." The officer invited the caller to stop by to purchase the "$40 bag," but police never made contact with the caller.
¶6 Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. After a two-day trial the jury found Defendant guilty of both counts. Defendant timely appealed.
Conclusion
¶7 We have read and considered counsel's brief and carefully searched the entire record for reversible error and found none. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 49, 2 P.3d at 100. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and substantial evidence supported the finding of guilt. Defendant was present and represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing, Defendant and her counsel were given an opportunity to speak and the court imposed a legal sentence.
¶8 Counsel's obligations pertaining to Defendant's representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and her future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.18(b), Defendant, or her counsel, has fifteen days to file a motion for reconsideration. On the court's own motion, we extend the time to file such a motion to thirty days from the date of this decision.
--------
_________________
ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge
CONCURRING:
_________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge
_________________
ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Judge