Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department A
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. V1300CR201180090 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Linley Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Appellee.
Napper Law Firm Prescott By John David Napper Attorney for Appellant.
KENT E. CATTANI, Judge
¶1 Appellant John Daniel Scrivner appeals from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm Scrivner's conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 On February 13, 2011, gas mart clerks called law enforcement in response to Scrivner's belligerent behavior and disheveled appearance, and out of concern for customer safety. Scrivner appeared unkempt, wild-eyed, and very agitated. He was moving around and talking very quickly, and yelling incoherently. At one point, Scrivner placed a torn-up check on the counter and asked the clerks to secure it for him in case he could not hold on to it. Scrivner told the clerks his girlfriend and her sons were chasing him and asked the clerks to call the police.
¶3 When a deputy sheriff arrived, Scrivner was moving around erratically and talking very quickly, so the deputy placed him in handcuffs and escorted him outside. Once outside, the deputy advised Scrivner of his Mirandarights, and Scrivner acknowledged that he understood his rights. The deputy asked Scrivner what he "was on, " to which Scrivner admitted snorting lines of something that looked like methamphetamine, but "was different." Scrivner later agreed to provide a urine sample, which tested positive for methamphetamine.
¶4 The State charged Scrivner with (1) possession or use of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine), a Class 4 felony; (2) possession or use of a narcotic drug (cocaine), a Class 4 felony; and (3) disorderly conduct, a Class 1 misdemeanor. Prior to trial, at the State's request, the trial court dismissed the charge of possession or use of cocaine.
¶5 At the close of the State's case, Scrivner moved for acquittal on both remaining counts pursuant to Rule 20 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court denied the motion, but the State subsequently decided not to pursue the claim relating to use of a dangerous drug, apparently because of a concern that the evidence did not establish when or where Scrivner used methamphetamine. Scrivner subsequently renewed his Rule 20 motion regarding possession of a dangerous drug. The trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted Scrivner of possessing a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) and disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced Scrivner to 10 years' imprisonment for the drug offense and to a 33-day jail term for disorderly conduct.
¶6 Scrivner timely appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A).
¶7 Scrivner argues the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. He alleges: (1) the substance in his urine did not fit the definition of methamphetamine contained in A.R.S. § 13-3401(6) (c)(xxxiv) and (2) there was ...