State v. King ( 2021 )


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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    TERRANCE LEE KING, Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CR 20-0310
    FILED 6-15-2021
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. CR2018-101982-001
    The Honorable Julie A. LaFave, Judge Pro Tempore
    The Honorable Geoffrey H. Fish, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
    By Linley Wilson
    Counsel for Appellee
    Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
    By Jeffrey L. Force
    Counsel for Appellant
    STATE v. KING
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in
    which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.
    C A T T A N I, Judge:
    ¶1              Terrance Lee King appeals his convictions and sentences for
    possession of narcotic drugs and possession of marijuana.1 King’s counsel
    filed a brief in accordance with 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, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous.
    King was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do
    so. Counsel asks this court to search the record for reversible error. See
    State v. Clark, 
    196 Ariz. 530
    , 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the
    record, we affirm King’s convictions and sentences.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2            One evening in January 2018, a Phoenix police officer saw
    King commit several traffic violations. The officer and others called to assist
    him briefly lost track of King’s car before they could make a traffic stop, but
    within minutes they located the then-parked car and found King crouched
    down behind another parked car nearby. King was detained, and an officer
    looking through the open driver’s window saw two clear plastic baggies in
    the center-console ashtray—one containing a white, powdery substance
    and the other a green, leafy substance. Lab testing confirmed that the
    substances were approximately 348 milligrams of cocaine and 1.5 grams of
    marijuana, respectively.
    ¶3           King was arrested and charged with possession of a narcotic
    drug (cocaine), a class 4 felony, and possession of marijuana, a class 6
    1      Arizona has since legalized limited adult possession and use of
    marijuana, and adult possession of 1.5 grams of marijuana (the basis for
    King’s marijuana conviction) is no longer a crime. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3405(A),
    36-2852(A)(1). We consider only the propriety of King’s conviction and
    sentence under then-existing law; we do not address whether King might
    secure expungement of the marijuana conviction if properly requested. See
    A.R.S. § 36-2862(A)(1).
    2
    STATE v. KING
    Decision of the Court
    felony. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3408(A)(1), (B)(1), -3405(A)(1), (B)(1). King was
    released on his own recognizance but failed to appear for the next
    scheduled hearing. He was again arrested a few months later on the
    resulting bench warrant and in connection with new offenses.
    ¶4             A jury found King guilty as charged. After finding two non-
    historical prior felony convictions, the superior court sentenced King as a
    category two repetitive offender to concurrent, presumptive prison terms,
    the greater of which is 4.5 years, with credit for 333 days of presentence
    incarceration. See A.R.S. § 13-703(A), (I). The superior court permitted King
    to file a delayed appeal, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f), and he filed a notice of
    appeal consistent with that ruling.
    DISCUSSION
    ¶5           We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
    reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 
    104 Ariz. at 300
    . We find
    none.
    ¶6             King was present and represented by counsel at all critical
    stages of the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior
    court afforded King all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the
    proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of
    Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings,
    and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s
    verdicts. King’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with
    proper credit given for presentence incarceration.
    3
    STATE v. KING
    Decision of the Court
    CONCLUSION
    ¶7            King’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the filing
    of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to King’s
    representation in this appeal will end after informing King 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). On the court’s
    own motion, King has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if
    he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 20-0310

Filed Date: 6/15/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/15/2021