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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

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 Glen n A. Allen

, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office

, Phoenix By Mark E. Dwyer Counsel for Appellant FILED 11-2-2021STATE v. SEDA
Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the C ourt, 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 5 37

, ¶ 3 0, 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.

FACT UAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 I n June 2019, police observed Seda commit a traffic violation while riding a bicycle and initiated a traffic stop

. T he 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 invo lving 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. T he 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 po ssession 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 c oncurrently

. Seda received 214 days of pre

incarceration 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 Crim inal 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) (righ t 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

sentenc ing on April 20, 2021

. Seda ’s pre

- incarceration credit should not include the date t he 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

sent ences. 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 recons ideration or petition for review.