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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DEWAYNE BRIAN WHEELER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0525

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2015-005330-001

The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Michael J. Dew Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Michael J. Dew

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. WHEELER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge James P. Beene joined.

D O W N I E, Judge:

¶1 Dewayne Brian Wheeler appeals his conviction for sale or 

transportation of dangerous drugs, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) section 13-3407. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel has searched 

the record, found no arguable question of law, and asked that we review 

the record for reversible error. See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339 

(App. 1993). Wheeler was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief 

in propria persona, but he has not done so. For the following reasons, we 

affirm Wheeler’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Wheeler approached an undercover officer at a gas station 

and asked whether he “knew anywhere to get some G.” Based on the 

officer’s training and experience, he knew that “G” meant 

methamphetamine. The officer told Wheeler he was waiting for his dealer. 

After some time passed, the officer stated his dealer “wasn’t going to show 

up,” and Wheeler responded, “let me see what I can do.” Wheeler then got 

on his phone and told the officer to “come walk.” 

¶3 The two men left the gas station and walked to an apartment 

complex. En route, Wheeler asked the officer how much G he wanted, and 

the officer said $20 worth. As the men approached their destination, a 

marked police car entered the complex. Wheeler and the undercover officer 

waited for the vehicle to leave. The officer then gave Wheeler $20, and 

Wheeler went into the complex for approximately ten minutes before 

returning with a brown bag containing methamphetamine. 

¶4 Wheeler was indicted for sale or transportation of dangerous 

drugs. After a three-day jury trial, jurors found him guilty as charged and 

found that the State had proven that the crime was committed while 

Wheeler was on probation for a felony offense — an aggravating 
STATE v. WHEELER

Decision of the Court

3

circumstance. Wheeler was sentenced to 15.75 years in prison and received 

presentence incarceration credit of 279 days. 

¶5 This Court has jurisdiction over Wheeler’s timely appeal 

pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 13-

4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have read and considered the brief submitted by 

Wheeler’s counsel and have reviewed the entire record. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300. We find no reversible error. All of the proceedings were conducted 

in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the 

sentence imposed was within the statutory range. Wheeler was present at 

all critical phases of the proceedings and was represented by counsel. The 

jury was properly impaneled and instructed. The jury instructions were 

consistent with the offenses charged. The record reflects no irregularity in 

the deliberation process.

¶7 Substantial evidence supports Wheeler’s conviction. The 

State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wheeler

knowingly sold methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, and that the 

substance was in fact a dangerous drug. A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(7). The

undercover officer identified Wheeler at trial and testified regarding the 

facts recounted supra. In addition, the State presented a forensic scientist 

who tested the substance in the bag and determined it was a usable quantity 

of methamphetamine. 

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm Wheeler’s conviction and sentence. Counsel’s 

obligations pertaining to Wheeler’s representation in this appeal have 

ended. Counsel need do nothing more than inform Wheeler of the status 

of the appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an 

issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition 

for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On the court’s
STATE v. WHEELER

Decision of the Court

4

own motion, Wheeler shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration 

or petition for review.