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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MICHAEL ALEX SEDA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0144 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2019-006180-001

The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Mark E. Dwyer

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 11-2-2021
STATE v. SEDA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Michael Alex Seda timely appealed in accordance with Anders 

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

following his convictions for one count of possession or use of dangerous 

drugs, a class four felony, and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia, a class six felony. Seda’s counsel has searched the record and 

found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. 

at 744; see also State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). Seda did 

not file a supplemental brief.

¶2 Our obligation is to review the entire record for reversible 

error, Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to sustaining the convictions and resolving all reasonable 

inferences against Seda. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). After 

reviewing the record, we find no error. We affirm his convictions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 In June 2019, police observed Seda commit a traffic violation 

while riding a bicycle and initiated a traffic stop. The officers saw Seda 

reach into his waistband as he rode through a nearby lot, trying to evade 

them. Seda eventually surrendered, and police found a plastic bag with

methamphetamine in Seda’s pocket. The officers also found a handgun in

the lot where Seda fled. After being arrested and read his Miranda rights, 

Seda admitted to possessing the drugs and handgun.

¶4 The State charged Seda with possession or use of dangerous 

drugs and misconduct involving weapons, both class four felonies, and 

possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony. The State also alleged 

Seda’s three prior felony convictions. Before trial, the superior court 

granted Seda’s motion to sever misconduct involving weapons from the 

other charges, minimizing any risk that Seda’s prior felony convictions 

might prejudice the jury.
STATE v. SEDA

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 The case proceeded to a jury trial on the drug possession and 

paraphernalia charges. The State presented testimony from a detective who 

witnessed Seda’s attempted evasion and arrest and the later searches. A

forensic scientist also testified, confirming the presence of 

methamphetamine in the plastic bag.

¶6 The jury found Seda guilty of possession or use of dangerous 

drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before sentencing, the State 

presented Seda’s Department of Corrections records showing his prior 

convictions. The superior court found the State proved Seda’s historical 

prior felony convictions and sentenced him as a category three repetitive 

offender. The court sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment for possession 

of dangerous drugs and 3.75 years’ imprisonment for possession of drug 

paraphernalia, to run concurrently. Seda received 214 days of preincarceration credit.

DISCUSSION

¶8 The record reveals sufficient evidence from which the jury 

could determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Seda is guilty of the 

charged offenses. The record further reflects that all proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

that Seda was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and 

that he was present at all critical stages. See State v. Conner, 163 Ariz. 97, 104 

(1990) (right to counsel); see also State v. Bohn, 116 Ariz. 500, 503 (1977) (right 

to be present at critical stages). Seda had a chance to speak during 

sentencing and the superior court stated on the record the factors it 

considered before imposing sentences within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. 

§§ 13-704, -3407(A)(1), -3415(A); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9, 26.10.

¶9 Seda received 214 days of pre-incarceration credit, 

representing the time between his arrest on September 19, 2020, and 

sentencing on April 20, 2021. Seda’s pre-incarceration credit should not 

include the date the superior court imposed his sentence. See State v. Lopez, 

153 Ariz. 285, 285 (1987). But we will not reduce Seda’s pre-incarceration 

credit because the State did not file a cross-appeal. See State v. Dawson, 164 

Ariz. 278, 282–83 (1990) (when a miscalculation favors the defendant, it 

cannot be corrected unless the State timely cross-appeals).
STATE v. SEDA

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶9 We have reviewed the entire record for arguable issues of law 

and find none. We therefore affirm Seda’s convictions and resulting 

sentences. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300–01.

¶10 Defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Seda’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel must only inform Seda 

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). Seda has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.