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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER LAVELLE COOPER, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0637

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201900672

The Honorable Derek Carlisle, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 5-5-2020
STATE 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

possession of dangerous drugs 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 convictions and sentences.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In February 2019, officers searched Cooper’s residence in 

Bullhead City pursuant to a search warrant, finding three baggies 

containing methamphetamine, three digital scales, pipes, additional 

baggies, other paraphernalia, and over $600 cash. Officers arrested him and 

released him from custody the following day. The Arizona Department of 

Public Safety determined the total quantity of methamphetamine seized 

weighed between 14.11 and 16.07 grams. Officers arrested Cooper again on 

April 12, 2019, for unrelated charges. Grand jurors charged him with 

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

felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony.

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

verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. 

Mendoza, 248 Ariz. 6, 11, ¶ 1, n.1 (App. 2019).
STATE v. COOPER

Decision of the Court

3

¶3 Before trial, Cooper’s counsel filed a motion in limine to 

preclude the State from impeaching Cooper with his prior felony 

convictions. The superior court granted the motion.

¶4 During a two-day jury trial held 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, whom he charged $400 and $500, 

respectively. Further, he said that he fixed bicycles weighing 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 

possession 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” typically goes for $100 to $150, or 

about $2800 per month on the conservative end, which was a substantial

amount for someone unemployed.

¶6 Jurors 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-paraphernalia 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 

himself 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).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We have read and 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 of 
STATE v. COOPER

Decision of the Court

4

Criminal Procedure. The court held appropriate pretrial hearings, and the 

evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support 

the jury’s verdicts. Cooper’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by 

law, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm Cooper’s convictions and sentences. After the filing 

of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Cooper’s 

representation in this appeal will end after informing Cooper of the 

outcome of this appeal and his future options, unless counsel’s review 

reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court 

by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).