Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0300
04-29-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAYMOND RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.
John R. Gustafson 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Not for Publication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 COCHISE COUNTY
Cause No. CR201100703
Honorable James L. Conlogue, Judge
AFFIRMED
John R. Gustafson Tempe
Attorney for Appellant
MILLER, Judge. ¶1 Appellant Raymond Rodriguez was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement of possession of drug paraphernalia in exchange for the dismissal of a separate charge of possession of paraphernalia and possession of cocaine. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Rodriguez on supervised probation for three years. This appeal follows the court's revocation of probation after a contested hearing and imposition of the presumptive prison term of one year. ¶2 Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to and in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 270 P.3d 870 (App. 2012), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing he has found no "arguable grounds for reversal or remand" and no "non-frivolous issues to raise in this appeal." Rodriguez has not filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record as counsel has requested and have found no reversible error with respect to the probation revocation proceeding or the disposition. Rather, the evidence, which includes the probation officer's testimony, forms Rodriguez had signed admitting his drug use, and urinalysis test results, amply supports the trial court's determination that Rodriguez had violated the terms of probation by using marijuana and cocaine. ¶3 Additionally, nothing in the record establishes the trial court abused its discretion or otherwise erred in revoking probation and sentencing Rodriguez to prison. The court's decision to revoke probation is supported by the record, which shows this was the second revocation proceeding in this matter; the court previously had placed him on intensive probation after Rodriguez admitted and the court found he had violated conditions of probation. And, the one-year-prison term, the presumptive term for the offense of possession of paraphernalia, a class six felony, is well within statutory parameters and was imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. § 13-702(D). ¶4 We affirm the trial court's orders finding Rodriguez violated probation, revoking probation, and sentencing him to prison.
___________
MICHAEL MILLER, Judge
CONCURRING: ___________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
___________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge