Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department B
Not for Publication -Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. P1300CR201001104 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge.
Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Andrew Reilly, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee.
David Goldberg Fort Collins Attorney for Appellant.
ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge.
¶1 Ronald Marvin Byrley, Jr., appeals his convictions for one count of possession of dangerous drugs; one count of sale of dangerous drugs; two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia; and one count of use of a wire device in a drug transaction. Byrley argues that error occurred in the admission of evidence and that the prosecutor improperly vouched for two witnesses. He additionally argues that there was insufficient evidence for two of the five convictions. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 We state the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions. State v. McCurdy, 216 Ariz. 567, 570, ¶ 2, 169 P.3d 931, 934 (App. 2007). An informant notified a narcotics detective that she had arranged to purchase methamphetamine from Byrley outside a convenience store. The detective provided the informant with an audio/video recording device and conducted visual surveillance of the transaction from a nearby parking lot.
¶3 On March 9, 2010, Byrley arrived at the agreed location in his truck. A passenger exited the truck and handed the informant a soda cup. In return, the informant gave the passenger forty dollars, which the passenger handed to Byrley. Inside the cup was a small plastic baggie containing .13 grams of methamphetamine.
¶4 The following month, the informant contacted Byrley to arrange a second purchase of methamphetamine. As with the first transaction, on April 21, 2010 the detective wired the informant and conducted visual surveillance of the "buy."
¶5 Byrley told the informant that he did not have any methamphetamine at the time, but stated that if she gave him the money, he would get it for her. When Byrley met with the informant, the informant gave Byrley forty dollars. Byrley left with the money and did not return for over two hours. The detective had other officers follow Byrley while he maintained surveillance on the informant.
¶6 After leaving with the money, Byrley had several telephone conversations with the informant in which he demanded that the informant return a computer she had purchased or pay him additional money. It was eventually agreed that the informant would pay Byrley an additional sixty dollars. When Byrley returned, the informant gave Byrley sixty dollars and Byrley handed the informant a small plastic baggie containing .21 grams of methamphetamine.
¶7 Byrley was arrested six months following the second transaction and charged with two counts of transportation of dangerous drugs for sale, three counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, and one count of use of a wire device in a drug transaction. One of the three counts of possession of drug paraphernalia was dismissed by the State prior to trial.
¶8 Upon trial to a jury, Byrley was acquitted of the charge of transportation of dangerous drugs for sale in regards to the first transaction but found guilty of the lesser-included offense of possession of dangerous drugs on that count. The jury found Byrley guilty as charged on the four other counts. The trial court sentenced Byrley to concurrent and ...