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

(Not for Publication-Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

THOMPSON, Judge

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Shon Deray Gauldin (defendant), after searching the entire record, has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has done so.

¶2 In 2011, a police officer witnessed defendant and another man engaged in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction. As the officer approached, he noticed that defendant clenched his left fist as if holding a small object. A second officer arrived at the scene and walked toward defendant. Defendant put the clenched fist into his pants pocket. When he removed his hand, it was in a natural, open position. The officer performed a pat-down and felt one rectangular object and two small, pebble-like objects. Defendant claimed that the pocket held only his cell phone. The officer reached into defendant's pocket and discovered a cell phone and two rocks of crack cocaine.

¶3 The state charged defendant with one count of possession or use of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony. At trial, defendant testified that he had borrowed the pants from a friend earlier that day. He claimed that he had no knowledge of the cocaine in his pocket when stopped by the officers and that it did not belong to him.

¶4 A jury convicted defendant as charged. Defendant admitted to three prior felony convictions, making him a category 3 repetitive offender. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-703(C) (2010). The court sentenced defendant to a presumptive term of 10 years in prison with credit for 278 days of presentence incarceration. Defendant timely appealed.

¶5 Defendant makes three arguments in his supplemental brief. First, he claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel during trial proceedings. We do not consider such claims on direct appeal and thus do not consider this argument. See State ex rel. Thomas v. Rayes, 214 Ariz. 411, 415, ¶ 20, 153 P.3d 1040, 1044 (2007) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims only appropriate in Rule 32 post-conviction proceedings). Second, defendant argues that the trial court committed structural error when it omitted the definition of "intentionally" from the final jury instructions. A reasonable doubt instruction that erroneously states the burden of proof is structural error. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1993). However, the offense with which defendant was charged here requires that the he "knowingly . . . possess or use a narcotic drug."1 A.R.S. § 13-3408(A) (2010). Because the offense does not require that the act be intentional, we find no error in the trial court's instruction.

¶6 Finally, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress drug evidence, which he argues was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution. Defendant testified at trial that he consented to the pat-down. The United States Supreme Court held in Minnesota v. Dickerson that an officer may lawfully seize contraband during a pat-down if its "contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent." 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993). The officer testified that based on his training and the circumstances, he knew during the pat-down that the pebbles in defendant's pocket were rocks of crack cocaine. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

¶7 We have read and considered counsel's brief and defendant's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant's counsel's obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶8 We affirm the conviction and sentence.

JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge, DONN KESSLER, Judge, concurring.