Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0093
04-15-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DAMIEN ANTHONY VASQUEZ, Appellant.
Barton & Storts, P.C. By Brick P. Storts, III Attorneys 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Not for Publication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 PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20110802001
Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge
AFFIRMED
Barton & Storts, P.C.
By Brick P. Storts, III
Tucson
Attorneys for Appellant
VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge. ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Damien Vasquez was convicted of the charged offenses of possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia and sentenced to concurrent, mitigated prison terms of six and 2.25 years respectively. He appealed, and appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing that, although he has found instances of ineffective assistance of counsel he believes were prejudicial, he has found no "arguable legal issues" in the record that may be raised on direct appeal. See State v. Sprietz, 202 Ariz. 1, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 525, 527 (2002) (claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be raised in petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.). He asks this court to search the record for fundamental error and to give Vasquez an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, which we have done. Vasquez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We have reviewed the record and have found no error that can be characterized as fundamental and prejudicial. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005). The record contains reasonable evidence to support the jury's verdicts. Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that while a Tucson police officer conducted a pat-down search of Vasquez, who had been a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation, a baggie containing what later was identified as methamphetamine fell out of Vasquez's pant leg. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3407 and 13-3415. The substantially mitigated prison terms for these offenses, which were deemed repetitive because of the three prior felony convictions the state had alleged and proved, were lawful and lawfully imposed. ¶3 We have reviewed the entire record for fundamental, prejudicial error, and, having found none, we affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed.
________________________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING: ________________________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
________________________
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge
A retired judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals authorized and assigned to sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals, Division Two, pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Order filed December 12, 2012.