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(Not for Publication — Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)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

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶1 Armengol Martin Marti appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. Marti's counsel filed a brief in compliance with 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 and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Marti was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 "We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions." State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). Marti was charged with two counts of aggravated driving in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 28-1381 (2012),1 both class 4 felonies, one count of possession of methamphetamine in violation of A.R.S. section 13-3407 (Supp. 2012), a class 4 felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of A.R.S. section 13-3415 (2010), a class 6 felony.

¶3 At a jury trial, Mesa Police Officer D.P. testified that on November 2, 2010, he was doing paperwork in his patrol car in a residential neighborhood when he saw a pickup truck stop outside a house for thirty seconds. When the truck left, D.P. followed it, ran the license plate number in his system, and determined that the truck was on the road unlawfully. After being pulling over, Marti stepped out of the truck and performed field sobriety tests, which D.P. said were not performed well. After determining Marti's license was suspended, D.P. arrested Marti and took blood and urine samples. Before the truck was towed, D.P. took inventory and found three baggies containing a white substance on the driver's seat.

¶4 A custodian of records for the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles testified that Marti's driver's license was suspended on November 2, 2010. Mesa Police Officer B.W. testified that he personally gave an affidavit of suspension to Marti on May 25, 2010, which Marti signed. Marti also attended a suspension hearing, where the administrative law judge told Marti that his license was suspended.

¶5 A forensic scientist tested the three baggies in Marti's truck and determined that they each contained methamphetamine. Another forensic scientist analyzed the blood sample and found seventeen milligrams per milliliter of amphetamine and 198 nanograms per milliliter of methamphetamine in the blood. The urine sample also contained amphetamine, methamphetamine, and codeine.

¶6 S.C. testified that she saw a man named Fred dump the contents of a baggie into Marti's beer at a bar where he was shooting pool that night. K.A., who had not spoken to S.C., testified that Marti brought a man named Fred to her house that night. She said Fred brought methamphetamine in a baggie into her home. Marti's counsel conceded that Marti in fact had methamphetamine in his truck and in his blood while driving but argued that he did not knowingly or voluntarily ingest it and that he was unaware the baggies were in his truck.

¶7 Marti was found not guilty on the counts of possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia. Marti was found guilty on two counts of aggravated driving while under the influence of drugs. He was sentenced to four months of jail time with thirty-two days of presentence incarceration credit and placed on three years of supervised probation for each count, to be served concurrently. Fines were also imposed. Marti timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A)(1) (2010).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Having considered defense counsel's brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. The evidence presented supports the convictions, and the sentences imposed fall within the range permitted by law. As far as the record reveals, Marti was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶9 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), counsel's obligations in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Marti of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel's review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Marti has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶10 The convictions and sentences are affirmed.

MARGARET H. DOWNIE, and LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judges, concurring.