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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IVAN ALVARADO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0801

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. V1300CR820060768

The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

C. Kenneth Ray, II PC, Prescott

By C. Kenneth Ray, II

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ALVARADO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

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

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Ivan Alvarado (“Defendant”) appeals from his sentence to 

11.25 years’ imprisonment for one count of promoting prison contraband,

a class two felony. Defendant’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 

(1969), advising this Court that after a search of the entire appellate record, 

no arguable ground exists for reversal. Defendant was granted leave to file 

a supplemental brief in propria persona, and did not do so. 

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record 

for reversible error.” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 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(A)(1) (West 2015).1 Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

¶3 A jury found Defendant guilty of possession of marijuana, 

possession of drug paraphernalia, and promoting prison contraband. 

Defendant moved for acquittal on the charge of promoting prison 

contraband; he argued he did not “voluntarily” introduce marijuana into 

the jail because he was transported there in custody. The court granted 

Defendant’s motion and entered a judgment of acquittal on the count of 

 

1 Unless otherwise specified, we cite to the current version of the 

applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have 

occurred.

2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 

(1989).
STATE v. ALVARADO

Decision of the Court

3

promoting prison contraband and proceeded to sentence him on the two 

remaining counts. 

¶4 The State appealed the court’s order granting Defendant’s 

motion of acquittal and succeeded in having Defendant’s conviction 

reinstated. As a result, the case was remanded for sentencing. 

¶5 At sentencing, the trial court designated the offense as a nondangerous, non-repetitive class two felony. The court did not find any 

aggravating or mitigating factors. The court did find Defendant was on 

release from custody on a separate felony charge at the time he committed 

the subject offense. Accordingly, the court sentenced Defendant to 11.25 

years’ imprisonment, arriving at this term by adding the statutorily 

mandated two years to the presumptive term of 9.25 years. See A.R.S. § 13-

708(D) (formerly § 13-604(R)). Defendant was awarded a credit of 52 days 

for presentence incarceration. 

¶6 Defendant appeals from the sentencing.

DISCUSSION

¶7 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and carefully 

searched the entire record for reversible error; we find none. Clark, 196 Ariz. 

at 541, ¶ 49. We do note, though, that during sentencing the court stated it 

was sentencing Defendant as a first-time offender, but it actually sentenced 

Defendant as a repetitive offender. This does not, however, constitute 

reversible error. 

¶8 The trial court imposed a legal sentence. The State alleged, 

and Defendant later stipulated, that he had prior felony convictions for 

forgery, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. 

The parties’ stipulation stated that these prior convictions would be used 

for sentencing purposes. Furthermore, during sentencing, Defendant’s 

counsel agreed that the presumptive term that should be applied to 

Defendant was 9.25 years—the presumptive term for a class two felony 

committed by a category two repetitive offender. See A.R.S. § 13-703(I). 

Thus, it is clear from the record that the court intended to sentence 

Defendant as a repetitive offender. 

¶9 We have determined, however, that the trial court incorrectly 

calculated that Defendant was entitled to 52 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. The record reveals that Defendant was taken into

custody on September 11, 2014. He remained in custody until he was 

sentenced on November 3, 2014. Defendant, therefore, was incarcerated for 
STATE v. ALVARADO

Decision of the Court

4

a total of 53 days prior to sentencing, and he should be awarded one 

additional day of presentence incarceration credit. Thus, we modify the 

sentence to reflect this. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.17(b); State v. Stevens, 173 

Ariz. 494, 495–96 (App. 1992) (correcting a miscalculation in credit by 

modifying the sentence without remanding to the trial court).

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant’s sentence as 

modified. We correct the sentencing minute entry so that the offense is 

designated as “repetitive” rather than “non-repetitive,” and we award 

Defendant an additional day of presentence incarceration credit.

¶11 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Defendant’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do nothing more 

than inform Defendant 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). Defendant shall have thirty days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.