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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JAMIE KAY SKARO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0005

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201600033

The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Law Office of Daniel DeRienzo, P.L.L.C., Prescott Valley

By Daniel J. DeRienzo

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-26-2017
STATE v. SKARO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

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

Appellant, Jamie Kay Skaro, has advised this Court that counsel found no 

arguable questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental 

error. Skaro was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for sale 

(methamphetamine), a Class 2 felony; possession of narcotic drugs 

(oxycodone), a Class 4 felony; possession of marijuana, a Class 6 felony; and 

possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony. Skaro was given an 

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

done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm Skaro’s convictions and 

sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Skaro. See State v. 

Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 On January 6, 2016, Detectives Westbrook and Hopper were 

on patrol when they noticed a brown sedan circling the block, speeding, 

and failing to stop at a stop sign. They conducted a traffic stop, pulling the 

sedan over in what was later revealed to be Skaro’s driveway, and 

identified Skaro as the driver. Detective Westbrook asked Skaro if she had 

anything illegal on her at that time, and she said yes and showed him a 

marijuana cigarette in her hand. He asked Skaro if she had anything else

on her, and Skaro reached for her pocket and threw what was later revealed 

to be a stun gun into the trunk. The detectives then arrested Skaro.

¶4 As Detective Westbrook handcuffed Skaro, he noticed she

had a methamphetamine pipe in her pocket and she kept trying to reach 

into another pocket in her coat. A search of the coat pocket revealed 

multiple baggies containing a white substance Detective Westbrook 

identified as methamphetamine. Skaro also admitted she had some pills in 
STATE v. SKARO

Decision of the Court

3

her purse that belonged to a friend. In the purse, the detectives found

multiple prescription bottles, one of which contained oxycodone and was 

registered to someone other than Skaro. After the detectives searched the 

vehicle, they asked if Skaro had anything illegal in her home, and Skaro 

said she had some marijuana on her nightstand. Skaro led Detective 

Westbrook to her bedroom, where he found marijuana and a surveillance 

monitor. The detectives then read Skaro her rights pursuant to Miranda v. 

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). She confirmed the marijuana in her bedroom 

was hers, she had between an eighth and a quarter ounce of 

methamphetamine on her, and she had had the methamphetamine for two 

weeks.

¶5 Skaro was indicted for possession of dangerous drugs for sale 

(methamphetamine), a Class 2 felony; possession of narcotic drugs, a Class 

4 felony; possession of marijuana, a Class 6 felony; and possession of drug 

paraphernalia (methamphetamine, narcotic drug, and marijuana), a Class 6 

felony.

¶6 At trial, Skaro testified and made several admissions. First, 

she admitted she had methamphetamine on her person when she was 

pulled over and the methamphetamine was for her own use. Second, she 

admitted the marijuana was hers1 and that she was in possession of the 

bottle of oxycodone when stopped, though she asserted she was returning 

the oxycodone to its owner when she was arrested.2 Finally, she admitted 

the pipe in her pocket was a methamphetamine pipe and that she only 

consumed methamphetamine by smoking it.

¶7 Detectives Westbrook and Hopper testified as to their 

interactions with Skaro. Westbrook also testified as to indicators of drug 

sale versus use, stating surveillance cameras, having methamphetamine 

packaged out into separate baggies, and the weight of methamphetamine

Skaro possessed were indicators of methamphetamine sale. He also stated 

the pipe found on Skaro contained white residue and burn marks that he 

identified as being indicative of methamphetamine use. Finally, a forensic 

scientist from the Arizona Department of Public Safety Crime Lab

identified the baggies from Skaro’s coat as containing methamphetamine, 

 

1 Skaro asserted at trial that she had a medical marijuana card, but she 

did not present evidence of this card until sentencing.

2 Skaro never presented evidence, other than her own testimony, of 

the owner, however.
STATE v. SKARO

Decision of the Court

4

the bag from Skaro’s bedroom as containing marijuana, and the 

prescription bottle as containing oxycodone.

¶8 After the two-day trial, a jury found Skaro guilty on all counts

and found the State had proven the aggravating factor of committing the 

offense as consideration for the receipt, or in the expectation of the receipt, 

of anything of pecuniary value. Skaro moved for acquittal pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 20, but the superior court 

denied the motion.

¶9 The superior court conducted the sentencing hearing in 

compliance with Skaro’s constitutional rights and Rule 26. As to count one, 

possession of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), a Class 2 

felony, the court sentenced Skaro to an aggravated sentence of twelve years’ 

imprisonment, non-dangerous, non-repetitive. For possession of narcotic 

drugs (oxycodone), a Class 4 felony, the court sentenced Skaro to a 

mitigated sentence of 2.25 years’ imprisonment, non-dangerous, repetitive, 

to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for count one. For 

possession of marijuana, a Class 6 felony, the court sentenced Skaro with a 

mitigated sentence of .75 years’ imprisonment, non-dangerous, repetitive, 

to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for count one. For 

possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony, the court sentenced 

Skaro to the mitigated sentence of .75 years’ imprisonment, non-dangerous 

and repetitive, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in count one. 

It credited Skaro 181 days of presentence incarceration credit, sentenced 

Skaro to a seventeen-month term of community supervision to be served 

consecutive to Skaro’s term of imprisonment, and ordered Skaro to pay 

several fines.3

¶10 Skaro timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised 

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

DISCUSSION

¶11 We review Skaro’s convictions and sentences for fundamental 

error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for 

Skaro has advised this Court that after a diligent search of the entire record, 

 

3 Count one: $1,000 plus 83% surcharge for a total of $1,830; count two: 

$2,000 plus 83% surcharge for a total of $3,660; count three: $750 plus 83% 

surcharge for a total of $1,372.50; probation assessment of $20; assessment 

fee of $13 pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 12-116.04.
STATE v. SKARO

Decision of the Court

5

counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have read and 

considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible error

and find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300.

¶12 The record reflects Skaro received a fair trial. She was 

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

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

The State presented both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to 

allow the jury to convict. The jury was properly comprised of twelve 

members. The court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the 

charged crimes, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of a 

unanimous verdict. The jury returned a unanimous verdict. The court 

received and considered a presentence report. All the proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 

and the sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines. We 

decline to order briefing and affirm Skaro’s convictions and sentences.

CONCLUSION

¶13 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none, therefore we affirm Skaro’s convictions and sentences.

¶14 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Skaro of the status of the appeal and of her future options. Counsel has no 

further obligations 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). Skaro shall have thirty days 

from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per

motion for reconsideration or petition for review.