Opinion
2 CA-CR 2020-0054
01-13-2022
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Shalmarie Ann Tulk, Appellant.
Robert J. Zohlmann, Tombstone Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County No. S0200CR201900012 The Honorable James L. Conlogue, Judge
AFFIRMED
Robert J. Zohlmann, Tombstone Counsel for Appellant
Presiding Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ECKERSTROM, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 After a jury trial, Shalmarie Tulk was found guilty of illegally conducting an enterprise and conspiracy to commit sale or transportation for sale of methamphetamine and money laundering. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Tulk on concurrent probation terms, the longer of which is seven 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 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record but found "no potential legal issues on appeal" and asking this court to review the record for error. Tulk has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶3Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-1003(A), 13-2312(B), 13-2317, 13-3407(A) . The evidence shows Tulk's participation in a drug smuggling operation, largely grounded in her communication with the investigation's primary target about drug transactions. The probation terms were lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(A), 13-902(A)(1), (2), 13-1003(D), 13-3407(B), 13-2312(D).
¶4 We have searched the record for reversible error and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Tulk's convictions and the court's disposition.