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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ADELL KARAAN COFFELT, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0241

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201500451

The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler

By Janelle A. McEachern

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. COFFELT

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Donn Kessler delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding 

Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

K E S S L E R, Judge:

¶1 Appellant Adell Karaan Coffelt (“Coffelt”) was tried and 

convicted of Count 1, possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine)

for sale, a class 2 non-dangerous felony; Count 2, possession of drug 

paraphernalia (methamphetamine), a class 6 non-dangerous felony; and 

Count 3, possession of marijuana, a class 6 non-dangerous felony, and 

sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.1 Counsel for Coffelt filed a brief in 

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

196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Finding no arguable issues to raise, counsel 

requests this Court search the record for fundamental error. Coffelt was 

given the opportunity to, but did not file, a supplemental pro per brief. For 

the reasons that follow, we affirm Coffelt’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In March 2015, Mohave County Sheriff’s Deputy AD 

approached Coffelt’s home and asked if she was selling methamphetamine. 

Coffelt agreed to speak with Deputy AD and informed him she was selling 

methamphetamine from her home and had the drug in her possession. She 

stated she had approximately a quarter ounce of methamphetamine and 

allowed Deputy AD to search inside her home. Both Coffelt and her 

husband signed a consent to search form offered by Deputy AD. 

¶3 Coffelt led Deputy AD to her bedroom and handed him a 

container having seventeen grams of a white crystalline substance, cut 

straws with white residue, razor blades, a small funnel, and baggies with 

residue. Inside the bedroom, Deputy AD observed two glass pipes with 

burnt residue, an electronic scale, two bags containing smaller baggies, and 

a mirror with a razor on top of it. Deputy AD found a bag with a white 

crystalline substance inside a jewelry box on the bedroom dresser and a bag 

 

1 A fourth count, possession of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony, was 

dismissed before trial without prejudice. Additionally, Coffelt’s husband

was convicted at the same trial, but is not a party to this appeal.
STATE v. COFFELT

Decision of the Court

3

of marijuana inside the dresser drawer. A lab technician, SS, testified the 

white crystalline substance tested positive as methamphetamine. 

¶4 Deputy AD advised Coffelt of her Miranda2 rights before 

beginning to question her. Coffelt confirmed she had been selling 

methamphetamine, telling Deputy AD that she did so to help with financial 

issues. Deputy AD noted Coffelt was familiar with the common 

denominations of methamphetamine distribution and use. Although she 

admitted to owning the methamphetamine, Coffelt asserted the marijuana 

was not hers and she was merely holding it for a friend. 

¶5 After a jury trial, Coffelt was convicted of possession of a 

dangerous drug (methamphetamine) for sale, possession of drug 

paraphernalia involving methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. 

The court considered the mitigating factors of Coffelt’s age and limited 

criminal record and found no aggravating factors. Coffelt received the 

following mitigated, concurrent sentences: five years’ imprisonment for 

Count 1, possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) for sale; and 

six months each for Count 2, possession of drug paraphernalia involving 

methamphetamine and Count 3, possession of marijuana. Coffelt was fined 

$1830 for Count 1 and $1372.50 for Count 3. 

¶6 Coffelt timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016) and 13-4033(A)(1) (2016).3

DISCUSSION

¶7 In an Anders appeal, this Court must review the entire record 

for fundamental error. Error is fundamental when it affects the foundation 

of the case, deprives the defendant of a right essential to her defense, or is 

an error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have had 

a fair trial. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005) (citation 

omitted). 

¶8 In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence at trial, “[w]e 

construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, 

and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” State v. Greene, 

192 Ariz. 431, 436, ¶ 12 (1998) (citation omitted). “Reversible error based on 

 

2 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

3 We cite to the current version of statutes unless changes material to 

this decision have occurred.
STATE v. COFFELT

Decision of the Court

4

insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence 

of probative facts to support the conviction.” State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 

186, 200 (1996) (quoting State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 424-25 (1976)).

¶9 Under A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(2) (Supp. 2015), it is a crime to 

knowingly possess a dangerous drug for sale. Methamphetamine is a 

dangerous drug pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3401(6)(c)(xxxviii) (Supp. 2015).

The crime of possession of dangerous drugs for sale has three elements. See 

A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(2). The State must prove the defendant possessed a 

dangerous drug; did so knowingly; and possessed it for the purpose of sale. 

Id. Coffelt admitted to Deputy AD that she had methamphetamine and had 

been selling it, and she gave Deputy AD a box containing seventeen grams 

of methamphetamine, straws for separating the drug, and bags containing 

smaller baggies. Coffelt asserted she had been dealing in order to help with 

financial issues, and she was familiar with the common denominations of 

methamphetamine distribution and use. Deputy AD also testified that 

seventeen grams was a large quantity for someone who was just using to 

possess, noting that even a heavy user consumes less than one gram a day.

We find this evidence sufficient to support Coffelt’s conviction for 

possession of dangerous drugs for sale.

¶10 Possession of drug paraphernalia has two elements. See A.R.S. 

§ 13-3415 (2010). The State must prove the defendant possessed drug 

paraphernalia and possessed it with the intent to use it as such. Id. Using an 

object as drug paraphernalia includes using the object to “process, prepare, 

. . . pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, ingest, inhale or otherwise 

introduce into the human body a [dangerous] drug.” A.R.S. § 13-3415(A). 

Factors used in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia 

include statements by an owner concerning its use; proximity of the object 

to drugs; and the existence of any residue of drugs on the object. A.R.S. § 

13-3415(E)(1), (4), (5). Deputy AD testified he found cut straws with white 

residue, razor blades, a small funnel, and baggies with residue. Deputy AD

also found two glass pipes with burnt residue, an electronic scale, two bags 

containing smaller baggies, and a mirror with a razor on top of it inside the 

bedroom. Coffelt told Deputy AD she used these items to repackage the 

methamphetamine for sale and for her own methamphetamine use. The 

items were found near bags of methamphetamine and the residue on the 

objects tested positive for methamphetamine. In light of these facts, 

sufficient evidence supports the verdict, and we affirm.

¶11 The crime of possession of marijuana has two elements. See

A.R.S. § 13-3405(A)(1) (Supp. 2015). The State must prove the defendant 

possessed marijuana and did so knowingly. Id. “Possession” under A.R.S. 
STATE v. COFFELT

Decision of the Court

5

§ 13-3405(A)(1) requires “only that the defendant exercise control over the 

drug, have knowledge of the drug’s presence, and know that the substance 

is in fact marijuana.” State v. Cota, 191 Ariz. 380, 382, ¶ 8 (1998) (citation 

omitted). Deputy AD found a bag of marijuana inside the dresser drawer. 

Coffelt asserted the marijuana was not hers, and she was merely holding it 

for a friend. As possession does not require ownership, sufficient evidence 

supports Coffelt’s conviction. We affirm.

CONCLUSION

¶12 After careful review of the record, we find no meritorious 

grounds for reversal of Coffelt’s conviction or modification of the sentence 

imposed. The evidence supports the verdict, the sentence imposed was 

within the sentencing limits, and Coffelt was represented at all stages of the 

proceedings below and was allowed to address the court before sentencing.

Accordingly, we affirm Coffelt’s conviction and sentence.

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

of the status of the appeal and her options. Defense 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). Coffelt shall have thirty days from 

the date of this decision to proceed, if she so desires, with a pro per motion 

for reconsideration or petition for review.