State v. Lester ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,
    v.
    ANTHONY MARCUS LESTER, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 22-0253
    FILED 12-20-2022
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
    No. V1300CR202080248
    No. V1300CR202180267
    The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Alice Jones
    Counsel for Appellee
    Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix
    By Nicole Countryman
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. LESTER
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding
    Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.
    M c M U R D I E, Judge:
    ¶1             Anthony Marcus Lester appeals his convictions of one count
    of possession of dangerous drugs for sale, three counts of possession of
    drug paraphernalia, four counts of sale or transportation of dangerous
    drugs, and the resulting sentences. Lester’s counsel filed a brief per Anders
    v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), and State v. Leon, 
    104 Ariz. 297
     (1969),
    certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable
    question of law that was not frivolous. Lester was allowed to file a
    supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the
    record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988); State v.
    Clark, 
    196 Ariz. 530
    , 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we
    affirm Lester’s convictions and sentences.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2            On March 17, 2020, Lester sold 2.57 grams of
    methamphetamine to a confidential reliable informant under the
    supervision of Partners Against Narcotics Trafficking (“PANT”). The next
    day, Lester sold another 3.35 grams of methamphetamine to the same
    informant at the same location.
    ¶3           On April 07, 2020, Lester was involved in a traffic stop. Police
    searched his vehicle and found three packages of methamphetamine
    weighing about seven grams, along with syringes, beakers, and other drug
    paraphernalia. Lester was arrested and interviewed by PANT officers and
    admitted to using and selling methamphetamine. On May 11, Lester posted
    a bond.
    ¶4            On April 14, 2021, Lester sold about three grams of
    methamphetamine to another informant. Two weeks later, Lester sold
    another 7.9 grams of methamphetamine to that informant.
    ¶5          Lester’s cases were consolidated for trial. Before the trial, the
    court dismissed Count Five from cause number V1300CR202080248.
    2
    STATE v. LESTER
    Decision of the Court
    Counts One and Four from cause number V1300CR202180267 were also
    dismissed.
    ¶6             The first informant did not testify at trial, but redacted
    recordings of his meetings were admitted into evidence and played for the
    jury. The lead detective from PANT testified to confirm the recordings. The
    second informant testified at trial, confirming his contract with PANT and
    that he participated in control buys from Lester. A forensic scientist from
    the controlled substances unit of the Department of Public Safety crime lab
    testified that she tested six items and found methamphetamine. Lester did
    not testify.
    ¶7            The jury convicted Lester for one count of possessing
    dangerous drugs for sale, three counts of possessing drug paraphernalia,
    and three counts of selling or transporting dangerous drugs. The jury found
    Lester committed two counts while on felony release and two other counts
    while on felony release and for pecuniary gain. The court found Lester was
    a category three repeat offender because of prior felony convictions. The
    court also found a previous methamphetamine conviction from August
    2011, increasing the sentencing range for the class two convictions.
    ¶8           The     court    sentenced    Lester   in  cause    number
    V1300CR202080248: ten years flat time on Count One (possession of
    dangerous drugs for sale—methamphetamine), three years on Count Two
    (possession of drug paraphernalia—methamphetamine), ten years flat time
    on    Count      Three    (sale     or  transportation   of    dangerous
    drugs—methamphetamine), and ten years flat time on Count Four (sale or
    transportation of dangerous drugs—methamphetamine). The court
    ordered each sentence to run concurrently with the others, and Lester was
    granted 358 days of pretrial credit.
    ¶9           The court also sentenced Lester in cause number
    V1300CR202180267: twelve years on Count Two (sale or transportation of
    dangerous drugs—methamphetamine), five years on Count Three
    (possession of drug paraphernalia—methamphetamine), twelve years on
    Count      Five      (sale     or    transportation   of    dangerous
    drugs—methamphetamine), and five years on Count Six (possession of
    drug paraphernalia—methamphetamine related). The court ordered each
    sentence for this cause number to run concurrently with the others but
    consecutively to the sentences from cause number V1300CR202080248.
    ¶10          Lester appealed.
    3
    STATE v. LESTER
    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    ¶11          We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
    reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 
    104 Ariz. at 300
    . We
    find none.
    ¶12           Lester was present and represented by counsel at all stages of
    the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court
    afforded Lester all his constitutional and statutory rights and conducted the
    proceedings following the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court
    held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and
    summarized above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. Lester’s
    sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given
    for presentence incarceration.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶13           Lester’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the
    filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations about Lester’s
    representation in this appeal will end after informing Lester of the outcome
    of this appeal and his future options unless counsel’s review reveals an
    issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition
    for review. See State v. Shattuck, 
    140 Ariz. 582
    , 584–85 (1984).
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 22-0253

Filed Date: 12/20/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2022