Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0433
07-10-2014
THE STATE OF ARIZONA Appellee, v. REBECCA SAUCEDO, Appellant.
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By Frank P. Leto, Assistant Public Defender, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Pima County
No. CR20124172001
The Honorable Kenneth Lee, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender
By Frank P. Leto, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Espinosa concurred.
MILLER, Presiding Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Rebecca Saucedo was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug (cocaine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Saucedo on concurrent, eighteen-month terms of probation for each count. 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), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he has provided "a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record" and asks this court to search the record for error. Saucedo has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), we find it sufficient to support the convictions. As a police officer approached her, Saucedo discarded a crumpled piece of paper containing cocaine. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(5), (20)(z); 13-3408(A)(1); 13-3415. And we find no error in the trial court's imposition of probation. See A.R.S. §§ 13-603(B), 13-901.01(A).
¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (stating Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, Saucedo's convictions and terms of probation are affirmed.