THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

(Not for Publication — Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

NORRIS, Judge.

¶1 David Leon Haro timely appeals from his convictions and probation for possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), a class four felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine), a class one misdemeanor. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S") §§ 13-3407(A)(1) (Supp. 2012), -3415(A) (2010). After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Haro's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. This court granted counsel's motion to allow Haro to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Haro did not do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, therefore, affirm Haro's convictions and probation.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 On August 4, 2011, a narcotics detective saw Haro driving away from a house that was under police surveillance for suspicion of drug activities and followed him. Subsequently, a police officer stopped Haro for speeding. During the traffic stop, Haro denied he had anything illegal in his truck, but when the detective asked what would happen if they brought a police dog to sniff his truck, Haro became extremely nervous and began sweating and shaking uncontrollably. Eventually, Haro admitted there was a "roach" — a burnt marijuana cigarette — in the ashtray, and the detective asked Haro to open the ashtray. The police officer then searched Haro's truck and found a spoon commonly used to smoke methamphetamine, a black PVC pipe with two bags inside, one of which contained 6.71 grams of methamphetamine, and an unloaded shotgun. Police did not find other evidence indicating drug sales, such as scale, ledger, empty bags, or loose cash. A grand jury subsequently indicted Haro of possession of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine); misconduct involving weapons; and possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine).

¶3 At trial, Haro admitted the methamphetamine was his and he was a drug addict. He testified he paid $360 for the methamphetamine and it was cheaper for him to buy it in larger quantities. He also testified he had the shotgun, which was his mother's, for shooting snakes.

¶4 The jury acquitted Haro of the misconduct involving weapons and possession of dangerous drugs for sale charges, but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), a class four felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine). After designating the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction a class one misdemeanor, the court suspended imposition of sentence on both convictions and placed Haro on supervised probation for three years, ordered him to perform 360 hours of community service, and to pay a $2,760 fine plus other fees.

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Haro received a fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages.

¶6 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdicts. The jury was properly comprised of eight members and the court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Haro's presumption of innocence, the State's burden of proof, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a presentence report, Haro was given an opportunity to speak — and did speak — at sentencing, and his probation was within the range for his offenses. See A.R.S. § 13-902 (Supp. 2012).

CONCLUSION

¶7 We decline to order briefing and affirm Haro's convictions and probation.

¶8 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Haro's representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Haro of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984).

¶9 Haro has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court's own motion, we also grant Haro 30 days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.

ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge, RANDALL M. HOWE, Judge, concurring.