Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

STATE v. LOPEZ-FELIX, 2 CA-CR 2012-0072. (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Number: inazco20121017003 Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2012
Summary: 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 MEMORANDUM DECISION ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge. 1 After a jury trial, appellant Tomas Lopez-Felix was convicted of transportation of marijuana for sale, the marijuana having a weight of more than two pounds. He was sentenced to a presumptive five-year prison term. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with
More

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge.

¶ 1 After a jury trial, appellant Tomas Lopez-Felix was convicted of transportation of marijuana for sale, the marijuana having a weight of more than two pounds. He was sentenced to a presumptive five-year prison term. 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 "set forth a detailed procedural and factual history of the case" but found no arguably meritorious issues to raise. Lopez-Felix has not filed a supplemental brief.

¶ 2 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), we conclude that evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt. The evidence presented at trial showed that Lopez-Felix knowingly transported nearly 330 pounds of marijuana, an amount a sheriff's deputy testified was consistent with intent to sell. See A.R.S. § 13-3405(A)(4). Lopez-Felix's sentence was within the prescribed statutory range and was imposed lawfully. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-3405(B)(11).

¶ 3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, Lopez-Felix's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge, and GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Judge, concurring.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer