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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DANIEL VARGAS NAVARRO, JR., Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0106 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201601596 

The Honorable Patricia A. Trebesch, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee 

Nicole Countryman, Phoenix

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-2-2018
STATE v. NAVARRO

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Daniel Vargas Navarro Jr. appeals his convictions and 

sentences for possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug 

paraphernalia. Navarro’s defense counsel certified that he searched the 

entire record and identified no arguable question of law that is not 

frivolous. Therefore, under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State 

v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asked this Court to search the 

record for fundamental error. Navarro was given an opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief in propria persona, but has not done so. We have 

reviewed the record and found no error. Accordingly, Navarro’s 

convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In December 2016, officers responding to a 911 call found 

Navarro lying in the backseat of his parked vehicle in a store parking lot.

When the officers approached Navarro’s vehicle, they asked him to step 

out. Navarro complied. The officers later testified that Navarro’s body 

movements suggested he was impaired by methamphetamine. When the

officers asked Navarro for his driver’s license, Navarro stated that he did 

not have one with him, but that the officers could grab the photocopy he 

had on the vehicle dashboard. As one of the officers retrieved the copy of 

Navarro’s license, he noticed that on the floorboard there was a scale and a 

small plastic bag that contained a crystalline substance that appeared to be 

methamphetamine. The officer also observed other empty small plastic 

bags in the vehicle.

¶3 Navarro was charged with one count of possession of 

dangerous drugs for sale, a class two felony. However, at his trial, the court 

allowed the inclusion of instructions for a lesser included offense—

possession of dangerous drugs. Navarro was also charged with one count 

of possession of dangerous drug paraphernalia and one count of 

aggravated driving or actual physical control while under the influence.
STATE v. NAVARRO

Decision of the Court

3 

¶4 During trial, a forensic scientist for the Arizona Department 

of Public Safety testified. He provided a report that he tested one of the 

small plastic bags found in Navarro’s car and identified the substance as 

10.4 grams of methamphetamine. Navarro also testified, admitting that he 

was in possession of methamphetamine, but that it was for personal use 

and not for sale.

¶5 Navarro was convicted of one count of possession of 

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

dangerous drug paraphernalia, a class six felony. The State alleged an 

aggravating circumstance that Navarro was on parole when he committed 

the offense, and the jury found the aggravating circumstance proven 

beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, based on certified court records 

provided by the State, the court found that Navarro had committed two 

felonies within the past ten years as statutory aggravating factors. As to 

count one—possession of dangerous drugs—the court gave Navarro an 

aggravated sentence of eleven years. As to count two—possession of 

dangerous drug paraphernalia—the court gave Navarro the presumptive 

sentence of 3.75 years. The sentences imposed on each count run 

concurrently, and Navarro was appropriately awarded 407 days of 

presentence incarceration credit.

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, we view the facts as reflected in the record in the 

light most favorable to sustaining the conviction. State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 

402, 404 n.2 (App. 2015). Our review reveals no fundamental error. See Leon, 

104 Ariz. at 300 (describing our Anders review process). A person commits 

possession of dangerous drugs if, as relevant here, the person knowingly 

possesses methamphetamine. Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 13-3401(6), 

-3407(A)(1) (2018). A person commits possession of drug paraphernalia if, 

as relevant here, the person possesses with the intent to use drug 

paraphernalia to pack, repack, store, contain, or conceal an illicit drug. 

A.R.S. § 13-3415(A). Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence 

upon which the jury could determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 

Navarro is guilty of the charged offenses.

¶7 The record reflects that all proceedings were conducted in 

compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record 

further reflects that Navarro was represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings and was present at all critical stages, including the entire trial 

and the verdict. See State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990) (right to counsel); 

State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right to be present at critical stages). 
STATE v. NAVARRO

Decision of the Court

4 

The jury was properly composed of twelve jurors, and the record shows no 

evidence of jury misconduct. A.R.S. § 21-102; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). The 

court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses, 

the State’s burden of proof, and Navarro’s presumption of innocence. At 

sentencing, Navarro had the opportunity to speak, and the court stated on 

the record the factors it found in imposing the sentences. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 

26.9, 26.10. The sentences imposed are within the statutory limits. A.R.S. §§ 

13-703(J), -3407(A)(1), -3415(A). 

CONCLUSION

¶8 This Court has searched the record for fundamental error and 

has found none. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (1999) (in an Anders

appeal, “the court reviews the entire record for reversible error”). 

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

¶9 Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Navarro 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. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). 

Navarro has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he 

desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for 

review.