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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOSEPH GEORGE CARTER, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0417 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201701381 

The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael O’Toole

Counsel for Appellee 

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler

By Janelle A. McEachern

Counsel for Appellant 

Joseph George Carter, San Luis

Appellant

FILED 10-27-2020
STATE v. CARTER

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Joseph 

George Carter has advised the court that after searching the entire record, 

counsel is unable to discover any arguable questions of law and filed a brief 

requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Carter was 

given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se and did so, alleging 

a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”). We have 

reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, Carter’s 

convictions and resulting sentence are affirmed. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶2 Carter was charged by indictment after the execution of a 

search warrant uncovered drugs, weapons, and drug paraphernalia in his 

residence. Carter was charged with seven counts: (1) possession of 

dangerous drugs for sale (methamphetamine), a Class 2 felony, (2) 

possession of narcotic drugs for sale (heroin), a Class 2 felony, (3) 

possession of narcotic drugs for sale (cocaine), a Class 2 felony, (4) 

possession of marijuana for sale (more than four pounds), a Class 2 felony, 

(5) misconduct involving weapons as a prohibited possessor, a Class 4 

felony, (6) misconduct involving weapons during the commission of a drug 

offense, a Class 4 felony, and (7) possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 

6 felony. 

¶3 Carter was incarcerated in North Kern State Prison in 

California, until May 1, 2018, when the State began his transfer to Mohave 

County, pursuant to his IAD request. On June 21, 2018, Carter made an 

initial appearance in the Mohave County Superior Court. After an 

1 We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict,

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

Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588–89 (1997) (citation omitted). 
STATE v. CARTER

Decision of the Court

3 

unsuccessful settlement conference, but before trial, Carter moved to 

dismiss the case with prejudice alleging a violation of the IAD. The motion 

was denied, and trial began on May 7, 2019. 

¶4 After the jury was empaneled, the court learned that a clerk

had opened a sealed envelope while marking exhibits for trial. The 

envelope contained four bags of drugs seized by police and examined by

the crime lab. Carter moved for a mistrial, or in the alternative, to exclude 

the contents of the envelope as evidence. After full briefing and an 

evidentiary hearing, the court denied Carter’s motion. 

¶5 The jury heard testimony from four witnesses: two detectives, 

the clerk who opened the sealed envelope, and the crime lab technician who 

analyzed the drugs. After the State rested, Carter moved for a directed 

verdict of acquittal pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The 

court granted the motion as to count 4, and dismissed the possession of 

marijuana for sale charge. The jury convicted Carter of the remaining six 

counts. Following the aggravation hearing, the jury found that Carter 

committed all six offenses while on felony release, that he committed counts 

1–3 for pecuniary gain, and that the aggregate amount of drugs exceeded 

the statutory threshold. 

¶6 For all six counts, Carter was sentenced to a total of 35.5 

years’ imprisonment. We have jurisdiction over Carter’s timely appeal 

pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona 

Revised Statutes §§ 12-2101(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033. 

DISCUSSION

¶7 Carter faced four criminal cases in Mohave County, and he 

argues the IAD was violated in three of them, including this case. He asks 

us to join the three cases on appeal and to dismiss them with prejudice 

pursuant to the IAD. We decline to join the cases as we have already 

decided both, 1 CA-CR 19-0368 and 1 CA-CR 19-0331, and issued mandates. 

See State v. Carter, 1 CA-CR 19-0368, 2020 WL 949034 (Ariz. App. Feb. 27, 

2020) (mem. decision); State v. Carter, 1 CA-CR 19-0331, 2020 WL 3095869 

(Ariz. App. June 11, 2020) (mem. decision). 

¶8 The IAD provides a uniform means of transferring an 

incarcerated prisoner to a jurisdiction where the prisoner has outstanding 

charges pending. See A.R.S. § 31-481, Art. I. “The purpose of IAD is ‘[t]o 

implement the right to a speedy trial and to minimize the interference with 

a prisoner’s treatment and rehabilitation.’” State v. Almly, 216 Ariz. 41, 42, 

¶ 5 (App. 2007) (quoting United States v. Sorrell, 562 F.2d 227, 229 (3rd Cir. 
STATE v. CARTER

Decision of the Court

4 

1977) (alteration in original)). The IAD provides that once the prosecuting 

jurisdiction receives notice of the prisoner’s location of imprisonment and 

request for final disposition, the prisoner “shall be brought to trial within 

one hundred eighty days.” A.R.S. § 31-481, Art. III(a). If the deadline is not 

met, the court must dismiss the case with prejudice. See id. Art. V(c); Almly, 

216 Ariz. at 42, ¶ 3. However, the IAD allows the court to grant any 

necessary or reasonable continuances if good cause is shown. A.R.S. § 31-

481, Art. III(a); see State v. Schaaf, 169 Ariz. 323, 329 (1991) (finding no 

violation of the IAD’s time limits when continuances were granted for good 

cause). 

¶9 While imprisoned in North Kern State Prison, Carter made a 

demand for trial under the IAD. The State received Carter’s demand on

May 1, 2018, thereby commencing the 180-day period. See Almly, 216 Ariz. 

at 42, ¶ 3. At the July 9, 2018 pre-trial conference Carter’s counsel requested 

a one-month continuance. At the August 6, 2018 pre-trial conference, 

Carter requested a settlement conference, which the court scheduled for 

September 14, 2018. Due to a scheduling conflict, the court reset the 

settlement conference to October 23, 2018. At the October 29, 2018 status 

conference following the unsuccessful settlement conference, Carter 

requested the first available dates for trial. At that time, both the State and

defense counsel agreed to try Carter’s cases in chronological order. Finding 

good cause, the court set the first case for trial on February 5, 2019, and the 

instant case for trial beginning March 20, 2019. On January 22, 2019, due to 

a conflict with another trial, the court continued the trials over Carter’s 

objection. On February 22, 2019, the court reset Carter’s trial in the instant 

case to April 3, 2019. After the court continued the date again, trial began 

on May 7, 2019. 

¶10 Although the record shows that approximately 374 days

passed after the State received Carter’s IAD demand, at least 228 days are 

excluded from the statutory calculation based on the court finding those

continuances were reasonable and necessary and constituted good cause. 

See Schaaf, 169 Ariz. at 329. On this record we find no violation of the IAD’s 

180-day trial requirement. 

¶11 We have reviewed and considered counsel’s brief and have 

searched the remainder of the record for reversible error. See State v. Clark, 

196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999) (providing guidelines for briefs when 

counsel has determined no arguable issues to appeal). Searching the record 

and briefs reveals no reversible error. The record shows Carter was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and counsel was

present at all critical stages. From the record, all proceedings were 
STATE v. CARTER

Decision of the Court

5 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The sentence imposed was within the statutory limit. 

CONCLUSION

¶12 Because the record reveals no reversible error, Carter’s 

convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed. 

¶13 Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed to 

inform Carter of the status of his appeal and of his future 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). Carter shall 

have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a 

pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.