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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

, Appell ee ,

v.

JOEL VALENZUELA LEON

, Appellant

.

N o . 1 CA

- C R 14

- 0454

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. C R2013

- 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
C ounsel for AppellantSTATE 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 St ate 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 co urt 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 w ere each carrying a large rectangular backpack. A gents were directed via radio and FLIR toward the individuals. As the pursuing agents approached the individuals, spotting agents observed the indi viduals 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 bod y 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 c harged d efendant with one count of transporting more than two pounds of mariju ana for sale, a class 2 felony. After a jurySTATE 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 year s of imprisonment, and fined him $137,250. The court gave defendant 392 days of pr esentence incarceration credit.

¶5 We have read and considered defendant's Anders brief, and we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leo n , 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, 58 4

– 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 peti tion for review.

¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence

.