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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

PHILLIP THOMAS MATZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0491

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-158915-001

The Honorable Stephen M. Hopkins, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael O’Toole

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Mark E. Dwyer

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 8-20-2020
STATE v. MATZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Phillip Thomas Matz appeals his convictions and sentences 

for possession of marijuana, possession of a dangerous drug

(methamphetamine), possession of a narcotic drug (heroin), and possession 

of drug paraphernalia. Matz’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with 

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

(1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no 

arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Matz was given the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks 

this court to search the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 

Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm 

Matz’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In early December 2018, police officers were called to Matz’s 

residence on a matter unrelated to the current charges. After seeing a glass 

pipe with burnt residue on the kitchen counter—a pipe of the type often 

used to consume methamphetamine—the officers obtained a warrant and 

searched the premises, finding a cell phone box containing small bags of 

marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin. The serial number and type of 

phone reflected on the box matched those of the only cell phone found in 

Matz’s residence.

¶3 Matz was arrested and charged with the drug offenses 

outlined above, and a jury found him guilty as charged. After a trial on 

priors, the court found that Matz had multiple historical prior felony 

convictions and sentenced him as a category three repetitive offender to 

concurrent, presumptive terms of imprisonment, the longest of which is 10 
STATE v. MATZ

Decision of the Court

3

years, with credit for 256 days of presentence incarceration.1 Matz 

appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶4 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find 

none.

¶5 Other than three pretrial hearings at which counsel waived 

his presence, Matz was present and represented by counsel at all stages of 

the proceedings against him. The record reflects that the superior court 

afforded Matz all his constitutional and statutory rights and that the 

proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings,

and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s 

verdicts. Matz’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by law, with 

sufficient credit given for presentence incarceration.

1 Despite the court’s repetitive-offender findings, the initial 

sentencing order listed the years of imprisonment for each offense as 

though Matz were a first-time offender. See A.R.S. § 13-702(D). On the 

State’s motion, the court issued a corrected sentencing order substituting 

the correct number of years of imprisonment for a category three repetitive 

offender, see A.R.S. § 13-703(J), and Matz did not object to or separately 

appeal the corrected sentencing order. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.3(a), (c)(1), 

24.4.
STATE v. MATZ

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶6 Matz’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the 

filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Matz’s 

representation in this appeal will end after informing Matz of the outcome 

of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals 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, Matz has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if 

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