NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

DAVID ALLEN SMITH, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0546

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-109719-001

The Honorable Roger E. Brodman, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Mikel Steinfeld

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SMITH

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop 

joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Defendant David Allen Smith timely appeals his conviction 

and sentence for possession or use of dangerous drugs, and possession of 

drug paraphernalia. Smith’s defense counsel has searched the record on 

appeal and asserts having found no arguable question of law that was not 

frivolous. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and 

State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), defense counsel asks this 

Court to search the record for fundamental error. Smith was given the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and has elected 

not to do so. After reviewing the record, we find no error and therefore 

affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. 

Background1

¶2 The facts of this case began as an undercover investigation of 

stolen go-carts (carts) conducted by the City of Glendale. On the morning 

of November 28, 2011, a used car business reported a break-in and theft of 

two carts to police. An undercover investigation conducted by the 

Glendale Police Department (GPD) followed. On February 10, 2012, the 

GPD observed Smith driving what looked to be one of the stolen carts. 

The GPD took photos of Smith driving the cart, initiated a conversation 

with Smith to gather information about the vehicle, and expressed interest 

in purchasing the cart. After Smith indicated he wanted to sell the cart to 

the undercover officer, the GPD then emailed the owner of the cart the 

photo to ascertain if the cart was one of those reported stolen. When the 

owner reported to the GPD he was almost certain the cart was the stolen 

item, the GPD planned an operation to purchase the cart from Smith. An 

undercover officer then approached Smith to purchase the cart. Smith 

 

1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to upholding Smith’s 

conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Smith. State v. 

Cox, 214 Ariz. 518, 519, ¶ 2, 155 P.3d 357, 358 (App. 2007) (citing State v. 

Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, 412, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 912, 914 (2005)). 
STATE v. SMITH

Decision of the Court

3

sold the cart to the detective at which time a team of officers took Smith 

into custody. 

¶3 Once Smith was in police custody, the GPD conducted an 

inventory search of Smith’s wallet and found a clear plastic bag with a 

crystal like substance located in the credit card portion of the wallet. The

GPD then field tested the substance which indicated the substance was 

methamphetamine. Smith admitted to the GPD, and later during trial, the 

methamphetamine belonged to him.

¶4 The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office charged Smith with 

trafficking in stolen property in the second degree, a class 3 felony; 

possession or use of a dangerous drug, a class 4 felony; and possession of 

drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. After a six-day trial, the jury found 

Smith not guilty of trafficking in stolen property, but guilty of possession 

or use of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. See

Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) §§ 13-3407(A)(1) (2014), -3415 (2014). At 

sentencing, Smith admitted he had four prior felony convictions. Due to 

mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced Smith to 6 years’

imprisonment for the possession of a dangerous drug and 2.25 years’ 

imprisonment for possession of drug paraphernalia; the sentences were 

ordered to be served concurrently. Smith received 81 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. 

Discussion

¶5 After diligent search of the entire record, Smith’s defense 

counsel has advised this Court that he has found no arguable question of 

law. We have fully reviewed the record for reversible error, and we find 

none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881.

¶6 Substantial evidence exists to support Smith’s conviction 

and sentence. Substantial evidence is “such proof that ‘reasonable persons 

could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of 

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 

64, 67, 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (quoting State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419, 

610 P.2d 51, 53 (1980)). In determining whether sufficient evidence exists 

to support a conviction, we view the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict. State 

v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, 412, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 912, 914 (2005). “We review the 

sufficiency of evidence presented at trial only to determine if substantial 

evidence exists to support the jury verdict.” Id. at 411, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d at 913.

We find sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s convictions. Law 

enforcement officials found methamphetamine in Smith’s possession, and 
STATE v. SMITH

Decision of the Court

4

Smith admitted to law enforcement officers the substance belonged to 

him. Moreover, Smith testified during trial he was in possession of the 

methamphetamine acquired by law enforcement officials. Therefore, we 

affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence.

¶7 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel is no longer 

obligated to represent Smith in this appeal. Defense counsel need do no 

more than inform Smith of the outcome of this appeal and his future 

options, unless upon review defense 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).

¶8 Smith has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed with an in propria persona petition for review, if he so chooses. See 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(a). Upon our own motion, we also grant Smith 

thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona

motion for reconsideration.

Conclusion

¶9 We affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence.