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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SHAUN M. HANDLEY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0791

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-030241-001

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix

By Paul J. Prato

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. HANDLEY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), 

following Shaun M. Handley's conviction of possession or use of a 

dangerous drug (trifluouromethylphenylpiperazine ("TFMPP")), a Class 4 

felony. Handley's counsel has searched the record on appeal and found no 

arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 

259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). 

Handley was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not 

do so. Counsel now asks us to search the record for fundamental error. 

After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Officers keeping watch on a house whose occupant they 

suspected sold drugs saw Handley arrive and park in the driveway.1 The 

occupant emerged, talked to Handley briefly and gave him an item. 

Officers pulled over Handley's car shortly after he drove away. When 

officers told him what they had seen, he admitted he had been to the home

and had purchased ten pills. He told officers the pills were in the center 

console of his car and gave them permission to search the car. The officers 

discovered a bag that contained eight pills that were tested later and found 

to contain TFMPP.

¶3 Handley was tried in absentia after he failed to appear for trial. 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.1 states:

[A] defendant may waive the right to be present at any 

proceeding other than sentencing by voluntarily absenting 

 

1 On review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the jury's verdict and resolve all inferences against Handley. State v. Fontes, 

195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).
STATE v. HANDLEY

Decision of the Court

3

himself . . . from it. The court may infer that an absence is 

voluntary if the defendant had personal notice of the time of 

the proceeding, the right to be present at it, and a warning 

that the proceeding would go forward in his . . . absence 

should he . . . fail to appear.

The court informed Handley at his arraignment that if he failed to attend 

his trial, he would be tried in absentia. At a later status conference, Handley 

received personal notice of a new trial date. See State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 

503 (1977) (after notice is provided, court may infer defendant's subsequent 

absence is voluntary; burden to show otherwise is on defendant). Handley 

failed to appear at another status conference at which the court affirmed the 

trial date, and failed to appear for trial. Under the circumstances, Handley's 

counsel did not object to the trial proceeding without him, and the jury was 

instructed not to speculate about Handley's absence or use his absence as 

evidence of guilt.

¶4 The jury convicted Handley of possession of dangerous 

drugs. At sentencing, for which Handley was present, Handley admitted 

he had two historical prior felony convictions. The court imposed a 

mitigated sentence of six years' incarceration, with 107 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. 

¶5 We have jurisdiction of Handley's timely appeal pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised 

Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), 13-4031 (2016) and -4033(A)(1) 

(2016). 2

DISCUSSION

¶6 The record reflects Handley received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. He 

waived his right to be present at trial, but was present for sentencing. The 

court held appropriate pretrial hearings. It did not conduct a voluntariness 

hearing, but the record does not suggest a question about the voluntariness 

of Handley's statements to police. See State v. Smith, 114 Ariz. 415, 419 

(1977); State v. Finn, 111 Ariz. 271, 275 (1974).

¶7 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence 

sufficient to allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly comprised of 

eight members with two alternates. The court properly instructed the jury 

 

2 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute's current version.
STATE v. HANDLEY

Decision of the Court

4

on the elements of the charge and gave the key instructions concerning 

burden of proof, presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt and the 

necessity of a unanimous verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict. 

The court received and considered a presentence report, addressed its 

contents during the sentencing hearing and imposed a legal sentence for

the crime of which Handley was convicted.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none, and therefore affirm the conviction and resulting sentence. See 

Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300.

¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel's obligations 

pertaining to Handley's representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Handley 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 the court's 

own motion, Handley has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Handley has 30 days 

from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition 

for review.