NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

JESUS MEDINA LOPEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0135 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County 

No. S1400CR201400364 

The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office

By Joseph T. Maziarz, Phoenix 

Counsel for Appellee 

Yuma Public Defender’s Office

By Edward F. McGee, Yuma 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. LOPEZ 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined. 

T H O M P S O N, 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 Jesus Medina Lopez (defendant) has advised us that, after 

searching the entire record, he 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 supplement brief in propria persona, but has not done so. 

¶2 In March 2014, defendant’s mother reported to the police that 

defendant took money from her bank account without her consent. A San 

Luis police officer responded and questioned defendant in the front yard of 

his home. The officer noticed that defendant’s front pockets were bulky 

and conducted a pat down to search for weapons. The officer felt an object 

in defendant’s pocket and asked him if we would remove it. Defendant 

agreed and pulled out receipts from an ATM machine, several lighters, and 

a small plastic wrapping containing methamphetamine. The officer 

arrested defendant and read him his Miranda rights. Defendant later 

admitted to taking the money from his mother’s bank account, driving to 

Mexico, and buying beer and methamphetamine. 

¶3 The state charged defendant with one count of possession of 

dangerous drugs, a class four felony, and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia involving methamphetamine, a class six felony. The 

defendant moved to suppress the evidence and the statements he made to 

the officer, and the court held an evidentiary hearing to consider the 

motions. After the presentation of evidence, the court denied the motions. 

¶4 Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to the 

court taking judicial notice of the evidence presented at the evidentiary 

hearing. After a bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of possession 

of dangerous drugs. The court suspended imposition of sentence, placed 

defendant on thirty-six months supervised probation, and imposed a $1,830 

fine. 
STATE v. LOPEZ 

Decision of the Court 

3

¶5 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and 

we 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, 

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.

¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence.