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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

RUAN JUNIOR HAMILTON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0284 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2013-004881-001 

The Honorable Danielle J. Viola, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee 

The Heath Law Firm PLLC, Phoenix 

By Mark Heath 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. HAMILTON 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined. 

G E M M I L L, Judge: 

¶1 Ruan Junior Hamilton appeals from his convictions and 

sentences for four drug-related offenses. Hamilton’s counsel filed a brief in 

compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 

104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no 

arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record 

for reversible error. Hamilton was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, 

¶ 30 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in 

the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” State v. Powers, 200 

Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2 (App. 2001). This court has jurisdiction under Article 6, 

Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033. 

¶3 This case arises from a reverse sting operation conducted by 

law enforcement officers from several agencies, in which Hamilton and 

others attempted to purchase of a large quantity of marijuana. M.P., an 

undercover detective for Tempe Police, first met with Kevin Ottar, who was 

a co-defendant at trial. Hamilton and Ottar made arrangements for Ottar 

to purchase a large quantity of marijuana from M.P. on October 17, 2010. 

On that date, M.P. brought Ottar and Hamilton to a warehouse where they 

inspected, separated, and selected several dozen bales of marijuana. The 

men then went to a house in Phoenix where Hamilton brought in a suitcase 

full of money. Hamilton removed the money from the suitcase and used it 

to pay for the marijuana chosen earlier. Hamilton and others then 

repackaged the purchased marijuana. M.P. and the other men also 

discussed transporting the marijuana from Phoenix to Los Angeles, where 

it would then be transported to Florida. 
STATE v. HAMILTON 

Decision of the Court 

3

¶4 The reverse sting operation ended with the arrest of 

Hamilton, Ottar, and two other people. Hamilton was charged with four 

separate counts including conspiracy to commit possession of marijuana for 

sale; possession of marijuana for sale; money laundering in the second 

degree; and possession of drug paraphernalia. Hamilton was found guilty 

of conspiracy to commit possession of marijuana for sale, money 

laundering, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Hamilton was also 

found guilty of the lesser-included offense of attempted possession of 

marijuana for sale. The court considered both aggravating and mitigating 

circumstances, determined the mitigating factors outweighed the 

aggravating factors, and imposed a mitigated sentence. Hamilton was 

sentenced to incarceration for 3.5 years for conspiracy to commit possession 

of marijuana for sale, 2.5 years for attempted possession, and 2.5 years for 

money laundering, all to be served concurrently. Hamilton was also placed 

on probation for 3 years for possession of drug paraphernalia. He was 

given credit for 13 days of presentence incarceration for each count 

requiring prison time. 

DISCUSSION 

¶5 Having considered defense counsel’s brief and examined the 

record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, we find none. The 

evidence presented supports the convictions and the sentences imposed fall 

within the range permitted by law. The record reflects Hamilton received 

a fair trial. He was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings 

against him and was present at all critical stages. Furthermore, each of the 

four charges against him is substantiated by the record. Audio recordings 

were admitted that show Hamilton working with Ottar to facilitate the 

purchase. Money was exchanged between Hamilton and M.P. for the 

marijuana, and Hamilton assisted in repackaging the marijuana he had 

“purchased.” The jury also determined the evidence did not support a 

conviction for possession of marijuana, but instead found Hamilton guilty 

of the lesser-included offense of attempted possession. 

CONCLUSION 

¶6 Because we find no reversible error, we affirm the convictions 

and resulting sentences. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s 

obligations pertaining to Hamilton’s representation in this appeal have 

ended. Defense counsel need do no more than inform Hamilton of the 

outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless, upon review, counsel 

finds “an issue appropriate for submission” to the Arizona Supreme Court 

by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On 
STATE v. HAMILTON 

Decision of the Court 

4

the court’s own motion, Hamilton is granted 30 days (instead of 15) from 

the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro se motion for 

reconsideration. Alternatively, Hamilton has 30 days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro se petition for review.