Opinion
2 CA-CR 2023-0001
03-13-2024
The State of Arizona, Appellee, v. Melvin Rontaro Turnage, Appellant.
Megan Page, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20150286001 The Honorable Danelle B. Liwski, Judge
Megan Page, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Brearcliffe and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KELLY, JUDGE
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Melvin Turnage was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale, possession of heroin for sale, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony drug offense, and ten counts of sale of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced him to enhanced, concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 15.75 years. 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 and has found no "arguable legal issues to raise on appeal." Counsel has, nevertheless, listed two issues he "identified" and concluded were "not arguably meritorious." Counsel has asked us to search the record for reversible error. Turnage has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3102(A)(8), 13-3407(A)(7), 13-3408(A)(2), 13-3415(A). The evidence presented at trial showed that Turnage had participated in the sale of methamphetamine to two undercover officers on ten different occasions. On the day of the final sale at which Turnage was arrested, officers found additional methamphetamine, heroin, drug paraphernalia, and two guns in a safe in Turnage's home. Turnage has two or more historical prior felony convictions. We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(22), 13-703(C), (J), 13-3102(M), 13-3407(B)(7), 13-3408(B)(2), 13-3415(A).
¶3 We have reviewed the arguments counsel identified in his opening brief. We have concluded neither are arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012) ("In Arizona, we do not require defense counsel to list non-meritorious arguments in an Anders brief to alert us to issues that 'might arguably support the appeal.'" (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744)). Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Turnage's convictions and sentences are affirmed.