Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division, Department A
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20111707001 Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge.
John William Lovell, Tucson Attorney for Appellant.
MICHAEL MILLER, Judge.
¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Kimberly Ennis was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed enhanced, mitigated, concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was 2.25 years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and has found no "arguable question of law" to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Ennis has not filed a supplemental brief.
¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that a Tucson Police officer observed Ennis leave a hotel room that was under surveillance for drug activity. In a later search of the room, officers found methamphetamine, pipes, needles, a spoon with methamphetamine residue, and a scale with white residue. A purse containing Ennis's debit card and a baggie with traces of methamphetamine were also found in the room.
¶3 We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703, 13-3407, 13-3415. The sentencing minute entry, however, provides that the "fines, fees, and/or assessments" the court had imposed were "reduced to a Criminal Restitution Order [CRO]." But this court has determined that, based on A.R.S. § 13-805(C),  "the imposition of a CRO before the defendant's probation or sentence has expired 'constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.'" State v. Lopez, 231 Ariz. 561, ¶ 2, 298 P.3d 909, 909 (App. 2013), quoting State v. Lewandowski, 220 Ariz. 531, ¶ 15, 207 P.3d 784, 789 (App. 2009). Therefore, the CRO is vacated.
¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and, with the exception of the CRO, have found none. Therefore, Ennis's ...