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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TERRANCE THARP, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0204

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-147220-001

The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Carlos Daniel Carrion

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 1-9-2020
STATE v. THARP

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Chief 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 Terrance 

Tharp has advised this court that counsel found no arguable questions of 

law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Tharp was 

convicted of one count of possession or use of marijuana, a Class 1

misdemeanor, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 

1 misdemeanor. Tharp was given an opportunity to file a supplemental 

brief in propria persona; he has not done so. After reviewing the record, we 

affirm Tharp’s convictions and sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Tharp. See State v. 

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

¶3 While traveling eastbound on the State Route 202 on the 

morning of September 22, 2017, Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) 

Detective Bunch noticed a red sedan traveling “well over the flow of 

traffic.” Detective Bunch changed lanes to drive behind the red sedan and 

noted the speedometer on his vehicle read more than 95 miles per hour in 

a 65 mile-per-hour zone. The detective activated his vehicle’s emergency 

lights; the sedan did not immediately yield, and Detective Bunch requested 

additional officers to assist with the traffic stop. The sedan then exited at 

Priest Drive; Detective Bunch activated his sirens, and the sedan stopped.

¶4 Upon approaching the vehicle, Detective Bunch “noted the 

distinct odor of unburnt marijuana.” Detective Bunch asked the driver to 

leave the vehicle and then identified the driver as Tharp, who provided the 

detective with a driver’s license. When Detective Bunch and Tharp 

returned to the vehicle, the detective “immediately noted the stronger odor 

of unburnt marijuana.” Detective Bunch looked into the door handle area 

of the open driver’s side door and saw “a loose green leafy substance.” The 
STATE v. THARP

Decision of the Court

3

detective then spotted a “small decorative Ziploc baggie” containing a 

similar green leafy substance in the floorboard area of the driver’s side. 

Detective Bunch testified he could see these items in “plain view” without 

touching the vehicle because the driver’s door remained open while Tharp 

sat in the front seat, looking for his registration and insurance information.

¶5 DPS Trooper Armold responded to the detective’s request for 

assistance; as he approached the vehicle, he detected an odor of marijuana.

He conducted a search of the vehicle and located: a clear plastic baggie with 

dollar symbols containing a green leafy substance on the driver’s side 

floorboard, burnt paper material behind the passenger seat, stems and 

seeds in the center console cup holder, a green leafy substance in the 

driver’s side door handle, and plastic containers each containing plastic 

baggies with a green leafy substance in the center console and the passenger 

side door.

¶6 The State charged Tharp with one count of possession or use 

of marijuana, a Class 6 felony, and one count of possession of drug 

paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony. At the initial appearance, the court 

appointed a public defender to represent Tharp. Later, during a

preliminary hearing, Tharp acknowledged an offered plea agreement, told 

the court he was rejecting the offer, and confirmed he understood the 

possible penalties he faced at trial. The State informed the court that Tharp 

did not have prior felony convictions “or drug strikes.”

¶7 At a second preliminary hearing, Trooper Armold testified 

that he found marijuana and Ziploc baggies containing marijuana during 

his search of the vehicle and that the DPS Crime Lab confirmed the 

substance was marijuana. The court found probable cause existed as to 

both charges and entered a plea of not guilty for Tharp.

¶8 During a pretrial conference, the parties agreed to amend the 

complaint to reclassify both counts as Class 1 misdemeanors, and the court 

set the matter for a bench trial. The court instructed Tharp to appear at trial 

and warned Tharp of the potential consequences should he not do so.

¶9 On the date of trial, Tharp did not appear at the time set for 

trial and the court proceeded in absentia over objection of Tharp’s counsel. 

Tharp arrived approximately forty minutes after the scheduled time for 

trial during the direct examination of Detective Bunch. Detective Bunch 

testified that during the traffic stop, he noticed an odor of marijuana coming 

from the vehicle driven by Tharp and saw marijuana in the vehicle. Trooper 

Armold testified that he noted an odor of marijuana coming from the 
STATE v. THARP

Decision of the Court

4

vehicle, conducted a search of the vehicle, and found marijuana and 

paraphernalia during his search. Trooper Armold identified Tharp as the 

driver of the vehicle and identified the exhibits consisting of the marijuana 

and paraphernalia evidence he found during his search of the vehicle. A 

forensic scientist from the DPS Crime Lab testified that he tested one of the 

exhibits and determined it contained a usable amount of marijuana.

¶10 Tharp testified at trial and did not dispute that DPS officers 

found marijuana and paraphernalia in the car he was driving. He testified 

that he had a medical cannabis card but had lost his wallet and could not 

produce the card for the officers; he testified that he showed them a photo 

of the card on his phone. The court noted that Tharp had not produced 

evidence that he had a valid medical cannabis card at the time of the traffic 

stop. Tharp testified that he had a card issued in November 2018 that was 

valid through November 2019. Trooper Armold then testified that Tharp 

had not shown him a photo of a medical cannabis card, but that Tharp told 

him that “he was a medical marijuana card holder from 2015 through 2017.”

Trooper Armold then testified that without a “QP ID number” dispatch is 

unable to look up a person’s “medical marijuana active status.” According 

to Trooper Armold’s testimony, Tharp had opportunity to provide his 

qualified patient number or his medical cannabis card but never did so. 

Even as of the day of trial, Tharp did not argue or offer any evidence that 

on the day of the charged offenses he was a medical marijuana cardholder.

¶11 The court determined that the State met its burden of proof 

and found Tharp guilty on both counts. During sentencing, the court took 

note of Tharp’s current valid medical cannabis card and placed Tharp on 

unsupervised probation for one year, instituted eight hours of drug 

education, fined Tharp $1,372.50, and imposed a Criminal Penalty 

Assessment of $13 and a Victim Rights Enforcement Assessment of $2. The 

court informed Tharp that he would be off probation once he paid the 

mandatory fines and completed the drug education course; the court noted

that if Tharp did so before May 1, 2019, he would not be responsible for a 

probation service fee and a “time payment” probation assessment.

DISCUSSION

¶12 We review Tharp’s convictions and sentence for fundamental 

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

Tharp has advised the court that after a diligent search of the entire record, 

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

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

error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All of the proceedings were 
STATE v. THARP

Decision of the Court

5

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So 

far as the record reveals, counsel represented Tharp at all stages of the 

proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory guidelines. 

We decline to order briefing and affirm Tharp’s convictions and sentence.

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

Tharp of the status of the appeal and of his 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). Tharp shall have thirty days 

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

for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Tharp’s convictions and 

sentence.