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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CATHERINE LYNN HART, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0323

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201600177

The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 4-12-2018
STATE v. HART

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Catherine Lynn Hart timely appeals from her convictions and 

sentences for: one count of transportation of dangerous drugs for sale 

(methamphetamine), a class 2 felony; one count of possession of a 

dangerous drug for sale (methamphetamine), a class 2 felony; and one 

count of possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine), a class 6 

felony. After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable 

question of law that was not frivolous, Hart’s counsel filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 

104 Ariz. 297 (1969), asking this court to search the record for reversible

error. This court granted counsel’s motion to allow Hart to file a 

supplemental brief in propria persona, but Hart did not do so. After 

reviewing the entire record, we find no reversible error and, therefore, 

affirm Hart’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 In late January 2016, Hart drove Nicole Parker from Bullhead 

City, Arizona to Calexico, California. There, Parker retrieved three bundles 

of methamphetamine that were thrown over the border wall between the 

United States and Mexico. Hart and Parker then stopped at a gas station, 

where Hart purchased peanut butter and saran wrap. Inside Hart’s vehicle, 

Parker wrapped the methamphetamine bundles in layers of peanut butter 

and saran wrap in an attempt to mask the drug’s smell and avoid detection 

at a border-patrol checkpoint. Hart and Parker returned undetected to 

Bullhead City with the methamphetamine. Parker gave Hart a small 

amount of methamphetamine and Hart allowed Parker to stay at her house. 

Thereafter, police officers observed several other people they knew to be 

involved in drugs enter and then soon leave Hart’s home. The police 

executed a search warrant on Hart’s home, and Hart admitted to the police 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s 

verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Hart. State v. Guerra, 

161 Ariz. 289, 293 (1989). 
STATE v. HART

Decision of the Court

3

both that she was using meth and that she had a meth pipe in her pocket. 

The police also located bundles and smaller bags of methamphetamine 

inside of Hart’s purse in her bedroom. 

¶3 After trial, the jury found Hart guilty on all three counts. The 

court sentenced her to the presumptive term of 10 years for the 

transportation charge, the presumptive term of 10 years for the possession 

charge, and the presumptive term of 1 year for the drug paraphernalia 

charge, all running concurrently. The court awarded her 67 days of 

presentence incarceration credit.

DISCUSSION

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. Hart received a fair trial. She was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at 

all critical stages.

¶5 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdicts. The jury was properly comprised of eight members and the 

court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Hart’s 

presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the necessity of 

a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a 

presentence report, Hart was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing,

and her sentences were within the range of acceptable sentences for her 

offenses.

CONCLUSION

¶6 We affirm Hart’s convictions and sentences.

¶7 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Hart’s representation in this appeal have ended. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Hart 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. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984).
STATE v. HART

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 Hart has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if 

she wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. On the court’s own 

motion, we also grant Hart 30 days from the date of this decision to file an 

in propria persona motion for reconsideration.