Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department B
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY Cause No. CR201200071 Honorable James L. Conlogue, Judge
Law Office of Daniel DeRienzo, PLLC By Daniel J. DeRienzo Prescott Valley Attorney for Appellant.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Francisco Rascon was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor. The trial court found he had one historical prior felony conviction and sentenced him to an enhanced, presumptive, 4.5-year prison term. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no error or arguable questions of law to raise on appeal. He asks this court to search the record for reversible error. Rascon has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts. State v. Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. 356, ¶ 2, 186 P.3d 33, 34 (App. 2008). On July 20, 2011, Douglas Police Department Officer M. Villa suspected Rascon of driving on a suspended license and followed him until Rascon pulled into a residential driveway and parked. C.G., Rascon's passenger, testified that as Rascon was pulling into the driveway, he produced a handgun and ammunition and "threw them" into her purse, which was open on the console. C.G. had reported this to Villa before he left the scene, and a functioning handgun, a magazine, and bullets were found in C.G.'s purse. A latent print examiner with the Arizona Department of Public Safety Laboratory testified that a latent fingerprint found on the gun matched Rascon's index finger. A Cochise County Adult Probation Officer testified that on July 20, 2011, Rascon had been on probation for a felony offense.
¶3 We conclude substantial evidence supported Rascon's conviction, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3101(A)(7)(d); 13-3102(A)(4), and his sentence was authorized by law, see A.R.S. § 13-703(B)(2) and (I). In our examination of the record, we have found no fundamental or reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See ...