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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STEWART LEE BRASWELL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0416

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-436377-001

The Honorable William L. Brotherton Jr., Judge

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jeffrey L. Force

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. BRASWELL

Decision of the Court

2

Stewart Lee Braswell, Tucson

Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Appellant Stewart Lee Braswell timely appeals from his

convictions and sentences for possession of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony, 

in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3408 (2010), 

and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, in violation of A.R.S. 

§ 13-3415 (2010). After searching the record on appeal and finding no 

arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Braswell’s counsel filed a 

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 

L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), 

asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. This court 

granted counsel’s motion to allow Braswell to file a supplemental brief in 

propria persona, and Braswell did so. We reject the arguments raised in 

Braswell’s supplemental brief and, after reviewing the entire record, we 

find no fundamental error. Therefore, we affirm Braswell’s convictions and 

sentences as corrected. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 On August 1, 2013, a Phoenix Police Department officer

responded to a 911 call made by a hotel employee. The employee directed 

the officer to a hotel room where a man had been screaming, making loud 

noises, banging on doors to other hotel rooms, and slamming a door very 

loudly. As the officer approached, Braswell opened the door and stepped 

through the doorway as he was yelling at someone in the room. When 

Braswell saw the officer he turned around and attempted to re-enter the 

room, but the officer grabbed and handcuffed him. The officer arrested 

Braswell for disorderly conduct, and after performing a search incident to 

an arrest, he discovered a baggie containing a white rock-like substance in 

 

1We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the jury’s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Braswell. See

State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 
STATE v. BRASWELL

Decision of the Court

3

Braswell’s pants pocket which the officer believed was crack cocaine. The 

officer also saw a clear glass pipe fall from Braswell’s handcuffed hands. 

¶3 A grand jury indicted Braswell for possession of narcotic 

drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, and disorderly conduct. At trial, 

a forensic scientist with the City of Phoenix Police Department Crime 

Laboratory testified the white rock-like substance was cocaine, and the 

officer testified the glass pipe was consistent with the kind of pipe used to 

smoke crack cocaine. The jury found Braswell not guilty of disorderly 

conduct but guilty of possession of narcotic drugs and possession of drug 

paraphernalia. 

¶4 At the sentencing hearing Braswell admitted to having eight

prior felony convictions. The superior court sentenced Braswell as a 

category three repetitive offender to mitigated terms of 6 years’ 

imprisonment for possession of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony, and 2.25 

years’ imprisonment for possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, 

with both sentences to run concurrently. The court awarded Braswell 130 

days of presentence incarceration credit. 

DISCUSSION

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Braswell received a 

fair trial and was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. 

Braswell was either present or voluntarily absent at all critical stages of the 

case.2 

¶6 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, Braswell’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, Braswell was given an opportunity to speak at 

sentencing, and his sentences were within the range of acceptable sentences 

for his offenses.

¶7 In his supplemental brief, Braswell argues the hotel employee 

was “paid off to try to set [him] up,” and the police planted the drugs on 

 

2Braswell failed to appear at several pretrial hearings, was 

absent on the first day of trial, and elected not to appear for the rest of the

trial. The court was entitled to infer his absences were voluntary pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.1. 
STATE v. BRASWELL

Decision of the Court

4

him. The record contains no support for either argument, and as discussed 

above, the evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the 

jury’s verdicts. 

¶8 In our review of the record, we discovered two errors in the 

superior court’s sentencing minute entry. First, the minute entry describes 

Braswell’s convictions as “repetitive” but lists A.R.S. § “13-702”—the 

sentencing statue for first time felony offenders—for each offense. Braswell 

admitted to eight prior felonies, and the superior court sentenced him as a 

class three repetitive offender. Thus, we correct the sentencing minute 

entry to remove the citation to A.R.S. § “13-702” under Count 1 and to 

replace the citation to A.R.S. § “13-702” with “13-703” under Count 2. 

Second, the minute entry does not reflect the accurate dates of one of 

Braswell’s admitted prior felony convictions. Thus, we correct the 

sentencing minute entry to replace what currently reads, “Possession of 

Cocaine, a felony committed on 03/27/2009 and convicted on 01/27/2010 

in Hillsborough County,” with, “Possession of Cocaine, a felony committed 

on 03/05/2007 and convicted on 03/07/2009 in Hillsborough County.” 

CONCLUSION

¶9 We decline to order briefing and affirm Braswell’s convictions

and sentences as corrected.

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

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

counsel need do no more than inform Braswell of the outcome of this appeal 

and his 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, 684 P.2d 154, 156–57 

(1984).

¶11 Braswell has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

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

own motion, we also grant Braswell 30 days from the date of this decision 

to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.