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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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.

CHRISTO PHER LAVELLE COOPER
, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 19

- 0637

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015 CR201900672 The Honorable Derek Carlisle
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz C ounsel for Appellee

Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson C ounsel for Appellant FILED 5-5-2020STATE v. COOPER Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Vice Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

M c M U R D I E , Judge:

¶1 Christopher Cooper appeals his convictions and sentences for
po ssession of dangerous drug s for sale (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia

. Cooper ’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, she found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Cooper was allowed to file a supplemental brief but did not do so

. Counsel asks this court to search the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio
, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); State v. Clark
, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Cooper ’s conviction s and sentence s

.

FACTS 1 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUN D

¶2 In February 2019, o fficers searched Cooper’s residen ce in Bullhead City pursuant to a search warrant , finding three baggies containing metham phetamine , three digital scales, pipes, additional baggies , other paraphernalia , and over $600 cash

. Officers a rrested him and released him from custody the following day. The Arizona Department of Public Safety determined t he total quantity of methamphetamine seized weighed between 14.11 and 16.07 grams. Officers arrested Cooper again on April 12, 2019
, for unrela ted charges

. Grand jurors charged him with possession of dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), a class 2 felony , and possession of drug parapherna lia, a class 6 felony.

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts and resolve all reasonable in ferences against the defendant. State v. Mendoza , 24 8 Ariz. 6
, 11 , ¶ 1, n.1 (App. 201 9 ).STATE v. COOPER Decision of the Court

3 ¶3 Before trial, Cooper’s counsel filed a motion in limine to preclude the State fr om impeaching Cooper with his prior felony convictions. The superior court granted the motion.

¶4 During a two

- day jury trial hel d in September 2019, Cooper testified on his behalf, alleging he used , but did not sell, methamphetamine

. He said he used “an 8

- ball [3.5 grams] , maybe a little bit more
, ” per day, and about 15 grams per week

. He also stated he acquired the cash found in his pockets from his two renters , who m he charged $400 and $500
, respectively. Further, he s ai d that he fixe d bicycles weighin g between 15 and 20 pounds in exchange for drugs , and he used the scales that were confiscated to weigh the bicycle parts

. ¶5 The State produced testimony from several witnesses
, including detective Jesus Alvarez . He testified the scales in Cooper’s
posses sion could only weigh 100 grams each ( less than a quarter of a pound )
, refuting Cooper ’s testimony regarding the purpose of the scales. Alvarez also testified that an “ 8

- ball ” typ ically goes for $100 to $150, or about $2 800 per month on the conservative en d , which was a substantial amount for someone unemployed

. ¶6 J urors found Cooper guilty as charged

. The court imposed a mitigated sentence of seven years’ imprisonment for the possession

- of

- dangerous

- drugs for sale count and four months’ imprisonment for the drug

- paraph ernalia count , running concurrently
, with 210 days’ presentence

- incarceration credit

. The court found no aggravating factors but considered as mitigating factors (1) Cooper’s family support

— his wife was present supporting him, (2) his intent to better h imself and mentor others, and (3) his inability to conform his conduct to the law based on his addiction

. ¶7 Cooper appealed, and we have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12

- 120.21(A)(1), 13

- 4031, and

- 4033(A)(1).

D ISCUSSION

¶8 We have read a nd considered counsel’s brief and have reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300. We find none.

¶9 Cooper was present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him

. The record reflects the superior court afforded Cooper all his constitutional and statutory rights, and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules ofSTATE v. COOPER Decision of the Court

4 Criminal Procedure. The court hel d appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at tria l and summariz ed above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict s

. Cooper ’s sentence s fall within the range prescribed by law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.

C ONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm Cooper ’s conviction s and sentence s

. After the fil ing of this de cision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Cooper ’ s representation in this appeal will end after inform ing Cooper of the outcome of this appeal and his future options , unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for submissi on to the Ariz ona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

– 85 (1984).