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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CONRAD LONNIE BOWEN, JR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0694

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-135741-002

The Honorable Virginia L. Richter, Judge, Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee

Bain & Lauritano, PLC, Glendale

By Sheri M. Lauritano

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-8-2017
STATE v. BOWEN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Patricia K. Norris1 and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Conrad Lonnie Bowen, Jr. timely filed this appeal in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 

104 Ariz. 297 (1969), following his conviction of possession or use of a 

dangerous drug, a Class 4 felony. Bowen'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. at 744; State v. Clark, 

196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Bowen was given the opportunity to file a 

supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel now asks this court to search 

the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the entire record, we 

affirm Bowen's conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Police stopped a car in which Bowen was riding and thought 

they smelled PCP.2 They ordered Bowen out of the car and found two 

cigarettes in a small plastic bag where Bowen's feet would have been in the 

passenger foot well. The cigarettes later were confirmed to contain PCP.

Bowen was convicted of possession or use of a dangerous drug. The 

superior court found he had two or more historical prior felony convictions 

and imposed a mitigated term of six years' incarceration.

1 The Honorable Patricia K. Norris, Retired Judge of the Court of 

Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant 

to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.

2 Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the jury's verdict and resolve all inferences against Bowen. State 

v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484, 509, ¶ 93 (2013).
STATE v. BOWEN

Decision of the Court

3

¶3 Bowen timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

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

Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2017), 13-4031 (2017) and -4033 (2017).3

DISCUSSION

¶4 The record reflects Bowen received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him and was 

present at all critical stages. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings.

¶5 The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence 

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

eight members. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of 

the charges, the State's burden of proof and the necessity of a unanimous 

verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which was confirmed by 

juror polling. The court considered Bowen's criminal history and imposed 

a legal sentence for the crime of which he was convicted.

CONCLUSION

¶6 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.

¶7 Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Bowen's 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than 

inform Bowen 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. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 

582, 584-85 (1984). On the court's own motion, Bowen has 30 days from the

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

a statute's current version.
STATE v. BOWEN

Decision of the Court

4

date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration. Bowen has 30 days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with a pro per petition for review.