Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0219
02-04-2016
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAMES ANTHONY SHADE, Appellant.
COUNSEL Roach Law Firm, L.L.C., Tucson By Brad Roach Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the superior Court in Pima County
No. CR20135250001
The Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Roach Law Firm, L.L.C., Tucson
By Brad Roach
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred.
ESPINOSA, Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, James Shade was convicted of two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor and one count each of possession of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of a narcotic drug for sale, possession of drug paraphernalia, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, a dangerous offense. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which are 15.75 years.
¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks this court to search the record for error. Shade has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports them here. In December 2013, Shade, a convicted felon, pointed a handgun at an undercover police officer who had knocked on the door of Shade's apartment. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(13); 13-1203(A)(2); 13-1204(A)(2); 13-3101(A)(7)(b); 13-3102(A)(4). Following his arrest a short time later, officers found in his apartment approximately twenty-six grams of methamphetamine and six grams of cocaine base, amounts consistent with possession for sale; a rifle; and "bong bowls," scales, and other drug paraphernalia. See A.R.S. §§ 13
3101(A)(7)(b); 13-3102(A)(4); 13-3401(5), (6)(c)(xxxviii), (20)(z); 13-3407(A)(2); 13-3408(A)(2); 13-3415(A).
¶4 The evidence also supports the trial court's finding that Shade had two historical prior felony convictions. And Shade's sentences were within the statutory range and properly imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J); 13-1204(D); 13-3102(M); 13-3407(B)(2); 13-3408(B)(2); 13-3415(A).
¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Shade's convictions and sentences are affirmed.