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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MEGAN HILL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0469

Appeal from the Superior Court in Apache County

No. S0100CR201300028

The Honorable Dale P. Nielson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Dirk LeGate, Holbrook

By Dirk LeGate

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 6-5-2018
STATE v. HILL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Megan Hill timely filed this appeal in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), 

following her conviction of possession of dangerous drugs and possession 

of drug paraphernalia. Hill's counsel has searched the record on appeal and 

found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. See Smith v. Robbins, 

528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 

1999). Hill was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did 

not do so. Counsel now asks this court to search the record for fundamental 

error. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm Hill's convictions and 

sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On September 27, 2012, police executed a search warrant at a 

towing facility and camping trailer.

1 After police announced their presence 

and used a flash-bang grenade, Hill emerged from the trailer and police 

detained her. Inside the trailer, police searched a purple purse and found

Hill's driver's license and a small plastic bag containing 50 milligrams of 

methamphetamine. In the kitchen of the trailer, police found what they 

believed to be a methamphetamine lab.

¶3 Hill was arrested and was tried on charges of possession of 

chemicals or equipment to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of 

dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. At trial, Hill

admitted the bag found in the purple purse was hers and that it had 

contained meth, which she had used. A jury acquitted her of possession of 

chemicals or equipment to manufacture, but convicted her of possession of 

 

1 Upon review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the jury's verdicts and resolve all inferences against Hill. State v. 

Hill, 236 Ariz. 162, 164, ¶ 2, n.1 (App. 2014).
STATE v. HILL

Decision of the Court

3

dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a 

Class 6 felony. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") §§ 13-3407(A)(l), (B) (2018); 13-

3415(A) (2018).

2 After finding that Hill had two prior felonies not 

committed on the same occasion but committed more than five years before 

the current offenses, the superior court sentenced Hill as a Category 1 

repetitive offender to concurrent sentences of 1.5 years for the drugpossession offense, the minimum term, and the presumptive term of one 

year for the paraphernalia offense, with 40 days pre-sentence incarceration 

credit. See A.R.S. § 13-703(A), (H) (2012).

¶4 Hill timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1) (2018), 13-4031 (2018) and -4033(A)(1) (2018).

DISCUSSION

¶5 The record reflects Hill received a fair trial. She was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against her and was 

present at all critical stages. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings.

¶6 Pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 609, the court held a 

hearing on Hill's prior convictions and ordered she could be impeached by 

her prior felony convictions, as "sanitized." The State presented both direct 

and circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict. Because 

the court imposed a sentence of less than 30 years, the eight-person jury 

sufficed. See State v. Soliz, 223 Ariz. 116, 120, ¶ 16 (2009). The court properly 

instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, the State's burden of 

proof and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The jury returned a 

unanimous verdict, which was confirmed by juror polling. The court 

received and considered a presentence report, addressed its contents 

during the sentencing hearing and imposed legal sentences for the crimes 

of which Hill was convicted.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and,

finding no arguable issue, affirm the convictions and resulting sentences. 

See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300.

¶8 Defense counsel's obligations pertaining to Hill's 

representation in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than 

 

2 Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite 

a statute's current version.
STATE v. HILL

Decision of the Court

4

inform Hill of the outcome of this appeal and her 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). On the court's own motion, Hill has 30 days from 

the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration. Hill has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if she wishes, with a pro per petition for review.