Opinion
1 CA-CR 12-0062
03-05-2013
STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SHERI LYNN WALKER, Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender 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.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
Rule 111, Rules of the
Arizona Supreme Court)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CR2009-159007-001
The Honorable Pamela H. Svoboda, Judge
AFFIRMED
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General
By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel
Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Division
Attorneys for Appellee
Phoenix
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender
By Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix
HOWE, Judge ¶1 Walker appeals her convictions and imposition of probation for Possession or Use of Marijuana, a class 1 misdemeanor, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a class 1 misdemeanor. Walker's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Walker asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. Walker was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. Walker has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Walker's convictions and sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Walker. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998). ¶3 On February 1, 2009, Mesa and Chandler police detectives participated in a joint task force operation in Chandler. During this operation, detectives pulled over Walker's vehicle for making a wide-turn and failing to signal while exiting a private driveway. As the detective began speaking to Walker through the open window, he smelled marijuana inside the vehicle. The detective notified Walker of the smell, asked her to exit the vehicle, and requested her consent to search the vehicle. Walker denied that there was any marijuana in the vehicle, but she nevertheless gave consent. ¶4 Upon searching the vehicle, the detective found a small bag of a green, leafy substance that he identified as marijuana based on his training and experience as an undercover narcotics officer. The detective advised Walker of her Mirandarights, to which she stated that she understood and wanted to talk about the found substance. During questioning, Walker admitted that the marijuana belonged to her, that she got it from friends, and that she occasionally used a metal container to store the marijuana. Testing of the substance confirmed that it was "813 milligrams of material containing marijuana in a useable quantity." ¶5 The State charged Walker with Possession or Use of Marijuana, a Class 6 Felony, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a Class 6 Felony. Walker agreed to a deferred prosecution plan, where the State suspended prosecution for a year to allow Walker to participate in a drug diversion program. During the program, Walker confirmed that "[t]he marijuana was found in my possession in my girlfriend[']s car." When Walker failed to appear for a mandatory appointment, the State resumed prosecution. ¶6 Initially, the trial court set a jury trial to begin on July 5, 2011. On June 23, 2011, the State filed a supplemental notice of disclosure for additional evidence and witnesses. Walker moved to exclude this information as untimely. The court denied Walker's motion and found that the State disclosed the evidence more than seven days before the original trial date. After Walker moved for a continuance, the court reset trial for August 16, 2011. ¶7 Walker next moved to suppress the seized evidence as a product of an illegal search and seizure, and the court set a hearing on the motion for October 14, 2011. At the hearing, the trial court heard evidence and denied the motion. Additionally, the court observed that the matter was scheduled for a bench-trial because the counts were previously designated misdemeanors. ¶8 Trial began on October 24, 2011. At the start of trial, the State confirmed that the prosecution designated both counts as misdemeanors. After the State presented its case, Walker moved for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. At the close of evidence, the court found Walker guilty of Possession or Use of Marijuana, a class 1 misdemeanor, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a class 1 misdemeanor. ¶9 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in compliance with Walker's constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 26. The trial court suspended sentence and placed Walker on supervised probation on both counts for 18 months. The trial court also imposed restitution in the amount of $750.00 and 24 hours of community service.
DISCUSSION
¶10 Counsel for Walker has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law. We have read and considered counsel's brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Walker was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing and we affirm Walker's convictions and sentences. ¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Walker of the status of her appeal and of her future options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Walker shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. On the Court's own motion, we extend the time for Walker to file a pro per motion for reconsideration to thirty days from the date of this decision.
CONCLUSION
¶12 We affirm.
________________________
RANDALL M. HOWE, Judge
CONCURRING: ________________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge
________________________
PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).