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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ROBERT JOEY MILLS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0216 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR202000069

The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Linley Wilson

Counsel for Appellee

Mohave County Legal Advocate’s Office, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 2-17-2022
STATE v. MILLS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

T H U M M A, 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 Robert Joey 

Mills advised this court that she has found no arguable question of law after 

searching the entire record and asks this court to conduct an Anders review. 

Mills was provided an opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not 

do so. This court has reviewed the record and has found no reversible error. 

Accordingly, Mills’ convictions and resulting sentences are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Early one morning in July 2019, the Arizona Department of 

Public Safety (DPS) executed a search warrant at a house in Kingman where 

Mills was located. During the search, DPS found several bags of 

methamphetamine and marijuana as well as drug paraphernalia, including 

digital scales and plastic bags. In Mills’ bedroom, DPS found two safes 

containing several bags of marijuana, four bags of methamphetamine, rifles 

and a handgun. Additional weapons were found between a dresser and a 

wall in Mills’ room. The dresser also had two loaded handguns, Mills’ 

driver’s license, a large bag of marijuana, $850 in U.S. currency and 

“miscellaneous non-American currency.”

¶3 After taking Mills into custody and reading him his rights 

pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), DPS questioned Mills at 

the house and the Mohave County Jail. Mills admitted that the guns found 

in the gun safe belonged to him, that he used methamphetamine the day 

before, that his fingerprints were “probably going to be on the bags of 

meth,” that the methamphetamine had been collected for years and some 

of it was “not good” and that he sells “quarters or whatever, maybe for 

$100.00.” 
STATE v. MILLS

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 The State charged Mills with: (1) possession of dangerous 

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

marijuana for sale, a class 3 felony and (3) misconduct involving weapons,

a class 4 felony. The court appointed counsel to represent Mills. After Mills’

request for new counsel was denied, he hired private counsel. 

¶5 Mills rejected a plea offer at a July 2020 settlement conference. 

A November 2020 trial resulted in a mistrial before any evidence was 

received given an incident between court staff and two jurors. The court 

then set a new trial for January 2021. 

¶6 In December 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,

the State requested a continuance. The court granted the State’s motion and 

trial was held in late March 2021. 

¶7 At trial before an eight-person jury, the State called three 

witnesses including an expert who identified the drugs found at the house.

Mills elected not to testify, as was his right, and the jury found him guilty

on all three counts. During the aggravating circumstances phase, the jury 

found the drug offenses were committed with the expectation of pecuniary

gain but rejected the allegation of the presence of an accomplice.

¶8 At sentencing, after hearing from counsel, Mills elected not to 

address the court. Finding mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating 

circumstance, the court imposed presumptive mitigated sentences. Mills 

was sentenced as a non-dangerous, non-repetitive offender to concurrent 

prison terms, the longest of which was 5 years. Mills was correctly awarded 

256 days of presentence incarceration credit. This court has jurisdiction over 

Mills’ timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona 

Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A) (2022).

DISCUSSION

¶9 The record shows that Mills was represented by counsel at all 

stages of the proceedings and that counsel was present at all critical stages. 

The record contains substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The 

sentences imposed were within statutory limits. The award of presentence 

incarceration credit was accurate. And in all other respects, from the record 

presented, all proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona 

Rules of Criminal Procedure.
STATE v. MILLS

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶10 This court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has 

searched the record provided for reversible error and has found none. Leon, 

104 Ariz. at 300; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). 

Accordingly, Mills’ conviction and resulting sentences are affirmed.

¶11 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel is directed to inform 

Mills of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel 

has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel identifies an issue 

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Mills has 30 days 

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

for reconsideration or petition for review.