Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2013-434869-001 DT The Honorable Daniel J. Kiley, Judge 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 Spencer D. Heffel Counsel for Appellant
Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.
¶1 Michael Canales ("Appellant") appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of sale or transportation of dangerous drugs. Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Appellant's counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error). This court allowed Appellant to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has done so, raising two issues that we address.
¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶3 On September 5, 2013, a grand jury issued an indictment, charging Appellant with two counts of sale or transportation of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), each a class two felony. See A.R.S. § 13-3407. The State later filed an allegation of historical priors, alleging Appellant had two historical prior felony convictions for enhancement purposes.
¶4 At trial, the State presented the following evidence: In March 2013, Phoenix police detectives Egea and Ayala were working undercover as narcotics officers, and they became aware of Appellant through Appellant's former girlfriend and a confidential informant. At approximately 4:30 p.m. on March 20, the detectives drove to an apartment complex in Phoenix, where the confidential informant introduced them to Appellant. The confidential informant walked away after the introduction, and the detectives, left alone with Appellant, inquired about purchasing methamphetamine. Appellant informed the detectives that he did not have the methamphetamine on his person, and the detectives agreed to drive Appellant to a different location, where Appellant would supply the methamphetamine.
¶5 The detectives drove Appellant to a second apartment complex. Detective Egea handed Appellant $110 to purchase the methamphetamine. Appellant exited the vehicle and entered a nearby apartment. When Appellant returned, he handed Detective Egea a Ziploc baggie containing a substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. Detective Egea gave Appellant an additional $20 for facilitating the deal, and the detectives drove Appellant back to the first apartment complex. The substance in the Ziploc baggie that Appellant handed Detective Egea was subsequently tested and determined to be 3.519 grams of methamphetamine, a usable quantity.
¶6 On April 10, 2013, the undercover detectives again arranged to purchase methamphetamine from Appellant. The detectives drove to a convenience store, where they met the confidential informant. Soon afterward, at approximately 3:40 p.m., Appellant arrived. Detective Ayala was the purchaser, and as Appellant approached Detective Ayala in the parking lot, the confidential informant walked away, while Detective Egea "kind of hung around [and] watched" the transaction between Appellant and Detective Ayala. Detective Ayala handed Appellant $150, and Appellant walked to a vehicle and retrieved a substance, which he gave to Detective Ayala. The substance was subsequently tested and determined to be 7.21 grams of methamphetamine in a usable condition.
¶7 The jury found Appellant guilty of both charged counts, and found the State had proved an alleged aggravating circumstance of pecuniary gain. Before sentencing, Appellant admitted he had two historical prior felony convictions for enhancement purposes. The trial court sentenced Appellant to concurrent, presumptive terms of 15.75 years' imprisonment in the Arizona Department of Corrections for each ...