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(Not for Publication — Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court)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

THOMPSON, Presiding 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 Medina Ann Stevens (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 she has not done so.

¶2 This is a probation violation case, in which defendant was arrested in 2008 and in 2010 when methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found in her home. Defendant was tried for the 2010 charges, and the jury found her guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine)1, a class 6 felony, and possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), a class 4 felony.

¶3 Following the conviction on the 2010 charges, defendant entered a stipulated guilty plea on the 2008 charges, and pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine), and the possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine) charge was dismissed. The court suspended sentencing in both cases, placed defendant on three years of probation, ordered that she follow sixteen uniform probation conditions (conditions), complete 360 hours of community service, and pay a fine.

¶4 A petition to revoke her probation was filed in 2011 that alleged defendant violated multiple probation conditions.2 The court held that the state had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated conditions one, three, seven, nine, and ten.3

¶5 At the disposition hearing, defendant's probation was revoked. Defendant was given mitigated, consecutive sentences of six months for each conviction, with 66 days of presentence incarceration credit on the first charge. Defendant timely appealed.

¶6 We have read and considered counsel'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 sentences imposed were 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 she so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶7 We affirm the convictions and sentences.

KENT E. CATTANI, Judge, LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge, concurring.