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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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
, 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 C ounsel for Appellant FILED 6-5-2018STATE 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 p ossession of dangerous d rug s and possession of drug p araphernalia. 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 t he entire record, we affirm Hill's convictions and
sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 On September 27, 2012, police executed a search warrant a t 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. I nside the trailer, pol i ce searched a purple purse and found Hill's driver's license and a small plastic bag containing 50 milligra ms of methamphetamine. In the kitchen of the trailer, police found what they believe d 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 d rug s 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 drug s , a Class 4 f elony , and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 f elony

. 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, t he superior court sentenced Hill as a C ategory 1 repetitive offender to concurrent sentences of 1.5 year s for the drug

possession offense , the minimum term, and the pres umptive 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 criti cal st ages. T he 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 conviction s , as "sanitized

. " The State present ed both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow the jury to convict. Because the court imposed a sentence of less than 30 years, t he 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
, find ing no arguable issue , affirm the convictions and resulting sentences

. See Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300.

¶8 D efense counsel ' s obligations pertaining to Hill's representation in this appeal have ended. C oun sel need do no more than

2 Absent material revision after the date of an a lleged offense, we cite a statute's cur rent version.STATE v. HILL Decision of the Court

4 inform Hill of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, u nless, 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 t o 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

.