Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. CR2010-147770-001, CR2012-129750-001 The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix By Tennie B. Martin Counsel for Appellant
Laisdel Vieras Cardenas Appellant
Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.
¶1 Defendant Laisdel Vieras Cardenas appeals his conviction and sentence for possession or use of a dangerous drug, and the revocation of his probation for an earlier felony offense.
¶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 searched the record on appeal, found no arguable nonfrivolous question of law, and 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 discern no fundamental error. We therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶4 The state charged Defendant with possession or use of a dangerous drug and misconduct involving weapons, and alleged that Defendant committed the offenses while on probation and had two prior felony convictions.
¶5 Before trial, Defendant twice moved to change his court- appointed counsel, and the court granted both requests. The court also granted Defendant's motion to withdraw from a plea agreement, and thereafter assigned Defendant a fourth new attorney after his counsel moved to withdraw. The court denied Defendant's subsequent motions to change counsel.
¶6 The matter proceeded to a jury trial, at which the jury found Defendant guilty of possession or use of a dangerous drug but was unable to decide whether he was guilty of misconduct involving weapons. The state presented evidence of the following relevant facts. As of June 5, 2012, Defendant was on probation for a felony offense. On that date, police contacted him at a retail establishment, arrested him, and searched him incident to the arrest. The officers found a large amount of cash in Defendant's pants pocket, including a dollar bill that was folded into a triangle. One of the officers ...