From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Pesina

COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO DEPARTMENT B
Dec 27, 2012
2 CA-CR 2012-0301 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2012)

Opinion

2 CA-CR 2012-0301

12-27-2012

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TIFFANY MARIE PESINA, Appellant.

Harriette P. Levitt Tucson 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Not for Publication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 Supreme Court


APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY


Cause No. S1100CR201100451


Honorable Boyd T. Johnson, Judge


AFFIRMED

Harriette P. Levitt Tucson
Attorney for Appellant
ESPINOSA, Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial held in her absence, appellant Tiffany Pesina was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale and transportation of marijuana for sale. The jury found that the amount of marijuana "far" exceeded the threshold amount, see A.R.S. § 13-3405(B)(6), (11), and that Pesina committed the offense in the presence of an accomplice, see A.R.S. § 13-701(D)(4). The trial court sentenced her to aggravated, concurrent six-year prison terms. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel also has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record." Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel's recitation of the facts. See Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 100. Pesina has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that, following a high-speed chase, a highway patrol officer stopped the vehicle in which Pesina was riding as a passenger. Pesina was laughing as the officer "ordered [her and the driver] at gunpoint to the ground face down." Officers noted "a strong smell of the odor of marijuana" inside the vehicle, and subsequently discovered "four bundles" of marijuana weighing "four pounds or more" inside the trunk of the vehicle. We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury's findings of all of the elements necessary for Pesina's convictions, see A.R.S. § 13-3405(A)(2), (4), and (B)(6), (11), and the sentences imposed are authorized by law, see A.R.S. § 13-702(D). ¶ 4 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. Accordingly, Pesina's convictions and sentences are affirmed.

________

PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING: ________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
________
VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge


Summaries of

State v. Pesina

COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO DEPARTMENT B
Dec 27, 2012
2 CA-CR 2012-0301 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Pesina

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TIFFANY MARIE PESINA, Appellant.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO DEPARTMENT B

Date published: Dec 27, 2012

Citations

2 CA-CR 2012-0301 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2012)