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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOEL VALENZUELA LEON, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0454

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-421737-004

The Honorable David B. Gass, Judge

AFFIRMED

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. LEON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as 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 Joel Valenzuela Leon (defendant) has advised us that, 

after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any 

arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting that this court 

conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an 

opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not 

done so.

¶2 On the night of May 13, 2013, border patrol agents discovered 

fresh footprints in the desert twenty miles south of Gila Bend. Other agents 

assisted by examining the area with a Forward Looking Infrared camera 

(FLIR) and thermal technology and identified individuals moving in single 

file through the desert north of the footprints. The individuals were each 

carrying a large rectangular backpack. Agents were directed via radio and 

FLIR toward the individuals. As the pursuing agents approached the 

individuals, spotting agents observed the individuals go into the brush and 

exit without their backpacks. Upon arriving at the scene, agents found five 

makeshift backpacks containing a total of approximately 253 pounds of 

marijuana. Pursuing agents were then directed toward defendant, who was 

hiding in the brush a half mile away. Defendant had marks on his body that 

were consistent with someone who had been carrying a large backpack.

¶3 Defendant was taken to the station and interviewed on the 

morning of May 14, 2013. After being informed of his rights, defendant 

admitted he and others were transporting bundles of marijuana. Defendant 

said he had been told he was going to get paid, but was unsure of the 

amount. A sheriff’s deputy assigned to the case concluded that, based on 

the quantity and the way it was packaged, the marijuana was possessed for 

sale.

¶4 The state charged defendant with one count of transporting 

more than two pounds of marijuana for sale, a class 2 felony. After a jury 
STATE v. LEON

Decision of the Court

3

trial, defendant was convicted as charged. The court found that defendant 

had a historical prior felony conviction, sentenced him to a term of seven 

years of imprisonment, and fined him $137,250. The court gave defendant 

392 days of presentence incarceration credit.

¶5 We have read and considered defendant's Anders brief, and 

we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted 

in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the 

sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. 

Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85, 684 P.2d 154, 156–57 (1984), defendant's 

counsel's obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days 

from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in 

propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence.