NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JAMES FREDRICK NEEL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0073

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR202000233

The Honorable Krista M. Carman, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Alice Jones

Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Nicole Countryman, Phoenix

By Nicole Countryman

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 1-12-2023
STATE v. NEEL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant James Neel

advised this court that she has found no arguable question of law after 

searching the entire record and asks this court to conduct an Anders review. 

Neel was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do 

so. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the record and have found no 

reversible error. Accordingly, Neel’s convictions and resulting sentences

are affirmed.

¶2 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the 

defendant.” State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404 ¶ 2 n.2 (App. 2015), quoting 

State v. Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996).

¶3 On February 9, 2020, law enforcement responded to a possible 

overdose at the home of Radeena Monroe. Monroe was later pronounced 

dead at a hospital. A medical examiner listed a mixed drug intoxication as 

the potential cause of death. In Monroe’s home, officers found nine 

counterfeit Percocet pills later tested to be fentanyl by the Department of 

Public Safety Crime Lab. A Detective extracted several text messages from 

Monroe’s cellular phone between her and “Jimbo,” who was later identified 

as Neel. In the messages, Neel offered to get Monroe 10 fentanyl pills for 

$10 each from a third party, and they settled on her paying $80 for the 10 

pills.

¶4 The State charged Neel with Count I, Sale or Transportation 

of Narcotic Drugs (fentanyl), a Class 2 felony; Count II, Use of a Wire 

Communication or Electronic Communication in a Drug-Related 

Transaction, a Class 4 felony; and Count III, Theft of Means of 

Transportation, a Class 3 felony. See Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§

13-3408(A)(7), -3417, -1814(A)(2).
STATE v. NEEL

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Neel did not testify or present any evidence during the twoday trial. A jury found Neel guilty of Counts I and II and not guilty of Count 

III. The jury also found the State did not prove its sentence enhancements, 

where it alleged Neel had committed Counts I and II for pecuniary gain.

During sentencing proceedings, the superior court found Neel had two 

historical felony convictions and sentenced him to mitigated concurrent 

terms of 10.5-years’ and six years’ imprisonment for Counts I and II, 

respectively, with 711 days of pre-incarceration credit for each count. The 

court also imposed a fine of $2,000 plus 78% in surcharges, victim rights 

assessments totaling $11, a penalty assessment of $13, a probation 

surcharge of $20, and a public defender assessment of $25 and $300 trial fee.

Neel timely appealed.

¶6 The record shows that Neel was represented by counsel at all 

stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical stages. 

The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdicts. The 

sentences imposed were within statutory limits. The award of presentence 

incarceration credit was accurate. And in all other respects, from the record 

presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶7 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has 

searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon, 

104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). 

Accordingly, Neel’s convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel is directed to inform 

Neel of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel 

has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue 

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). Neel shall have 30 

days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se 

motion for reconsideration or petition for review.