Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0511
06-11-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. IROQUOIS DANIEL SULLIVAN, Appellant.
Emily Danies, Tucson 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
Appeal from the superior Court in Gila County
No. S0400CR201200456
The Honorable Peter J. Cahill, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Brammer concurred. ESPINOSA, Judge:
The Hon. J. William Brammer, Jr., a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court.
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Iroquois Sullivan was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia involving methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced him to an enhanced, aggravated, 4.25-year prison term with 280 days of presentence incarceration credit. 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), in which she avows she has reviewed the record but has found no arguable issue to raise and requests that we search the record for fundamental error. Sullivan has not filed a supplemental brief. we affirm.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in August 2012, during a legal search of Sullivan's bedroom in his mother's home, a law enforcement officer discovered a "glass bulb with burnt residue inside and [a] glass fitting with residue inside of it and several cellophane bags." The residue on one of the items was methamphetamine. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, see A.R.S. § 13-3415(A), (F)(2), and Sullivan's sentence is within the prescribed statutory range and was lawfully imposed, see A.R.S. §§ 13-708(C), 13-901.01(H)(4), 13-3415(A), and 13-703(C), (J).
Although the search was conducted by Sullivan's probation officer, the jury was not told that he was a probation officer or that Sullivan was on probation.
We cite the current version of A.R.S. § 13-703, as the material provisions of the statute have not changed since the date of the offense. See 2013 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 55, § 3.
--------
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Sullivan's conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.