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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LAMONT RAY THOMAS, SR., Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0706

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2014-102589-001

The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Joel M. Glynn

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. THOMAS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Donn Kessler joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for defendant 

Lamont Ray Thomas, Sr., has advised the court that, after searching the 

entire record, he has found no arguable question of law and asks this court 

to conduct an Anders review of the record. Thomas was given the 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se, and has not done so. This 

court has reviewed the record and has found no reversible error. 

Accordingly, Thomas’ convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In January 2014, Thomas was charged by Information with 

possession or use of dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony (Count 1), and 

possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony (Count 2). The State 

made various pre-trial filings, including alleging Thomas had historical 

non-dangerous felony convictions. 

¶3 At trial, the evidence showed that a Tempe police officer, who

was patrolling near Mill Avenue around one o’clock in the morning, 

stopped Thomas after seeing him cross the street while the light was red.

The officer verified Thomas’ name, date of birth and social security number. 

After a record check revealed a warrant for Thomas’ arrest, the officer

searched Thomas and found a black cloth bag that contained a “crystallized 

clear rock” and a glass pipe commonly used to smoke methamphetamine. 

Thomas admitted to buying the “glass” and pipe for $20 earlier that evening 

so that he could smoke it later that night. 

 

1 This court views the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

verdict, and resolve[s] all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” 

State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588–89, 951 P.2d 454, 463–64 (1997) (citation 

omitted).
STATE v. THOMAS

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The officer testified that, based on his training and experience, 

the crystallized clear rock appeared to be methamphetamine. The officer 

further testified that “glass” is a common term for methamphetamine. 

Thomas successfully moved in limine to preclude the officer from testifying 

about the warrant and any outstanding charges, meaning the jury did not 

receive evidence about the warrant or the reason for the search. A 

criminalist from the Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime Lab 

weighed and analyzed the crystallized clear rock and testified it contained 

of 0.14 grams of methamphetamine. 

¶5 The jury found Thomas guilty as charged. During sentencing, 

Thomas admitted that he had a historical felony conviction for theft. The 

superior court sentenced Thomas to a slightly mitigated prison terms of 3.75 

years for Count 1 and 1.5 years for Count 2, to run concurrently.2 Thomas 

was given 245 days of presentence incarceration credit.

¶6 This court has jurisdiction over Thomas’ timely appeal 

pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona 

Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) 

(2015).3

DISCUSSION

¶7 This court has reviewed and considered counsel’s brief and 

has searched the entire record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 196 

Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). Searching the record and briefs

reveals no reversible error. The record shows that Thomas was represented 

by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and counsel was present at all 

critical stages. The evidence admitted at trial constitutes substantial 

evidence supporting Thomas’ convictions. From the record, all proceedings 

 

2 Although the sentencing minute entry lists the convictions as nonrepetitive offenses, at sentencing, the superior court stated it was sentencing 

Thomas for repetitive offenses. When a discrepancy exists between the oral 

pronouncement and the minute entry, the “[o]ral pronouncement in open 

court controls over the minute entry.” State v. Whitney, 159 Ariz. 476, 487, 

768 P.2d 638, 649 (1989) (citation omitted). Accordingly, this court relies 

upon the oral pronouncement that Counts 1 and 2 are repetitive offenses

and modifies the minute entry to reflect that Thomas was sentenced as a 

category two repetitive offender.

3 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
STATE v. THOMAS

Decision of the Court

4

were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. The sentences imposed were within the statutory limits and 

permissible ranges. The court’s review of the record reveals two issues that 

merit brief discussion.

¶8 First, the police officer testified that Thomas admitted that the 

“glass” was his and that he planned to smoke it later. A defendant has the 

right to challenge the admissibility of a confession, including whether the 

confession was voluntary. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977); State 

v. Alvarado, 121 Ariz. 485, 487, 591 P.2d 973, 975 (1979). Here, the State 

disclosed Thomas’ statement pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.1(b)(2). 

Thomas filed no motion requesting a voluntariness hearing and did not 

object to the admissibility of his statements. Accordingly, the record reveals 

no error in admitting the officer’s testify about Thomas’ statements. See 

Alvarado, 121 Ariz. at 488, 591 P.2d at 976. 

¶9 Second, Thomas was given 245 days of presentence 

incarceration credit. However, he was arrested in the evening on January 

16, 2014 and held in custody until his sentencing on September 19, 2014.

Therefore, Thomas is entitled to 246 days of presentence incarceration 

credit, reflecting the time from his arrest to his sentencing, and the 

judgment is modified accordingly. See A.R.S. § 13-712(B). 
STATE v. THOMAS

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶10 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has 

searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. State 

v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 

530, 537 ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). Accordingly, Thomas’ convictions 

and resulting sentences are affirmed as modified to reflect that he was 

sentenced as a category two repetitive offender and crediting him with 246 

days of presentence incarceration credit. 

¶11 Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Thomas of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense 

counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies 

an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by 

petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85, 684 P.2d 154, 

156–57 (1984). Thomas shall have thirty days from the date of this decision 

to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or 

petition for review.