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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RICHARD WAYNE SLEEPER, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0004 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201701275 

The Honorable Patricia A. Trebesch, Judge, Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Offices of Stephen L. Duncan P.L.C., Scottsdale

By Stephen L. Duncan

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

FILED 8-10-2021
STATE v. SLEEPER

Decision of the Court

2

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Richard Wayne Sleeper filed this appeal in accordance with 

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

(1969). Sleeper’s counsel searched the record and identified no arguable, 

non-frivolous question of law. Counsel, therefore, asks this court to review 

the record for fundamental error. Sleeper was given an opportunity to file 

a supplemental brief in propria persona. He has not done so. Finding no error 

in the record, we affirm Sleeper’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This court views the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the jury’s verdicts and resolves all reasonable inferences against 

Sleeper. See State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998). 

¶3 Law enforcement officers surveilled Sleeper’s apartment after 

receiving a tip Sleeper was selling drugs from the premises. Officers

observed multiple people visiting Sleeper’s apartment for short periods of 

time—including eleven different people visiting during a three-hour 

period.

¶4 Officers searched Sleeper’s trash after watching Sleeper take 

it out. The officers found bindles—small containers used to hold drugs for 

sale to users—and a syringe in the trash bags. They did not know to whom

in the household they belonged because Sleeper was not the only occupant 

of the apartment—there were at least five other people living there.

¶5 Later in the surveillance operation, some officers stopped a

vehicle after its two passengers left Sleeper’s apartment. The officers saw a 

bindle with residue on it on the seat between the driver and passenger. 

Officers searched the vehicle and found two bags containing 

methamphetamine. Officers stopped a second vehicle leaving Sleeper’s 

apartment. Officers again found methamphetamine.

¶6 Soon after, officers obtained a no-knock warrant to enter 

Sleeper’s home. Officers were concerned people inside would try to destroy 

evidence because the home had security cameras. In Sleeper’s bedroom, 

officers found three empty bindles. In Sleeper’s apartment, officers found a 

digital weighing scale with methamphetamine residue on it, a broken bong, 

three empty bindles in the toilet bowl, and a bindle with methamphetamine 

in it behind the toilet in the bathroom. The toilet water in which officers 

found the empty bindles tested positive for methamphetamine. Police 
STATE v. SLEEPER

Decision of the Court

3

suspected Sleeper had just left the bathroom before they arrived. Sleeper 

told officers he had just showered. Sleeper also told officers he used 

methamphetamine, but he did not know why there would be 

methamphetamine in the bathroom or who would have put it there.

¶7 The State charged Sleeper with four counts: possession of 

dangerous drugs for sale (count 1), a class 2 felony; sale or transportation of 

dangerous drugs (count 2), a class 2 felony; possession of drug 

paraphernalia (count 3), a class 6 felony; and using a building for the sale 

or manufacture of dangerous drugs (count 4), a class 6 felony. The superior 

court dismissed count 2 after Sleeper moved for acquittal under Rule 20 of 

the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. After a two-day trial, the jury 

convicted Sleeper on counts 1, 3, and 4.

¶8 The superior court sentenced Sleeper as follows: an 11.5-year 

aggravated term—flat time—on count 1; a 1.75-year presumptive term on 

count 3, and a 1.75-year presumptive term on count 4. The terms run 

concurrently. Sleeper received 836 days of presentence incarceration credit.

¶9 Sleeper timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under 

article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 13-4031 and 

13-4033.A.1.

ANALYSIS

¶10 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and fully 

reviewed the record for reversible error, finding none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 

300; State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011).

¶11 The superior court conducted all the proceedings in 

compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record 

shows Sleeper was present for, and represented by counsel at, all critical 

stages of the proceedings. See State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977); State v. 

Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 (1990). The jury was properly comprised of twelve

jurors and one alternate. See A.R.S. § 21-102.A. The record shows no 

evidence of jury misconduct. The superior court properly instructed the 

jury on the elements of the charged offenses, the State’s burden of proof,

and Sleeper’s presumed innocence. Additionally, Sleeper was given an 

opportunity to speak at sentencing, and the sentences imposed are within 

statutory guidelines. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10(b)(1); A.R.S. §§ 13-

701.D, -703.I.

CONCLUSION
STATE v. SLEEPER

Decision of the Court

4

¶12 We affirm Sleeper’s convictions and sentences.

¶13 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Sleeper’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more 

than inform Sleeper of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 

unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to 

our supreme court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584–85 (1984).

¶14 Sleeper has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 31.21. This court, on its own motion, also grants Sleeper thirty 

days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.20.