Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0340
05-21-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JORGE GERARDO VILLEGAS, Appellant.
COUNSEL Emily Danies, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Gila County
No. S0400CR201700148
The Honorable Bryan B. Chambers, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
¶1 After a jury trial in September 2017, Jorge Villegas was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Villegas on a two-year term of supervised probation. 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), asserting she has reviewed the record but found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, she 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 fundamental error. 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32. Villegas has not filed a supplemental brief.
The jury found Villegas not guilty of transportation of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of a narcotic drug for sale. --------
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. While conducting a consensual search during a March 2017 traffic stop of the vehicle Villegas had been driving, a police officer found two bundles containing approximately two pounds each of heroin wrapped in a "food saver type of plastic seal" inside a "hidden" compartment below the center console. See A.R.S. § 13-3415. And, the probationary term is within the statutory limit and was properly ordered. See A.R.S. §§ 13-902(A)(4), 13-3415(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 (1985) (stating Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Villegas's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia and the related term of probation.