Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2011-006680-001 The Honorable Jeanne M. Garcia, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Carlos Daniel Carrion Counsel for Appellant
Jaime Soto Jacott Appellant
Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined.
¶1 Defendant Jaime Soto Jacott appeals his conviction and sentence for sale or transportation of dangerous drugs.
¶2 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Defendant's appellate counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable nonfrivolous question of law; he now asks us to review the record for fundamental error. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Defendant has filed a supplemental brief in propria persona in which he raises several issues for appeal.
¶3 Having searched the record and considered the briefing, we affirm Defendant's conviction, and we modify his sentence to correct a miscalculation of presentence incarceration credit.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶4 The state charged Defendant with sale or transportation of dangerous drugs under A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(7). Defendant pled not guilty, and the court set the matter for a jury trial.
¶5 Defendant, who was out of custody on a surety bond, failed to appear at several hearings immediately before trial. He then failed to appear at trial. His counsel informed the court that he had spoken with Defendant after each missed pretrial hearing, that Defendant was aware of the hearings and the trial, and that counsel was unaware of any legal excuse for Defendant's absence. The court found that Defendant had voluntarily chosen not to be present and ordered that trial proceed in his absence.
¶6 After jury selection, but before the presentation of any evidence, defense counsel made two oral motions in limine. First, counsel moved to preclude evidence that Defendant was seen storing a firearm in his vehicle after conducting the transaction at issue. The court granted this motion. Counsel next moved to preclude evidence that the "buy house" at which the relevant acts occurred had been set up by law enforcement because of a drug problem in the neighborhood. Counsel argued that such evidence was unduly prejudicial because it implied that Defendant was a contributor to the problem. The court ...