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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

S TATE OF ARIZONA
, Appellee
,

v.

R ACHEL LUNT
, Appellant

.
No. 1 CA-CR 20-0124

A ppeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2019-001190-001 The Honorable Marvin L. Davis , Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Michael O’Toole Counsel for Appellee

M aricopa County Public Defender’s Office
, Phoenix By Mark E. Dwyer C ounsel for Appellant FILED 10-29-2020STATE v. LUNT Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B A I L E Y , Judge:

¶1 This is an appeal under Anders v. California , 3 86 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defen dant Rachel Lunt filed a brief advising the court that, after searching the entire record, he is unable to discover any arguable questions of law and requesting that this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Lunt was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief pro se but did not do so

. For reasons that follow, we affirm Lunt’s conviction s and resulting sentenc es.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In May 2018, Wal- Mart employees apprehended Lunt and accused her of shoplifting. About forty

- five minutes later , G lendale Police Department Officer Anthony Johnson arrived and read Lunt the Miranda 1 warnings and searched her purse. The purse contained a glass pipe, a straw with a burnt top, and green baggies

. There was also a green baggy containing a white crystal substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. Lunt did not deny ownership of the items and later confirmed the purse was hers

. Testing later confirmed that the white crystal substance was a usable qua nt ity of methamphetamine.

¶3 The State indicted Lunt on one count of possession of methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia

. See A.R.S. §§ 13 -3407 (A)(1) , -3415 (A)

. Lunt’s trial lasted three days, and at the close of the State’s case, Lunt moved for acquittal pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The court denied the motion.

¶4 T he jury found Lunt guilty of both counts
, and t he trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Lunt on probation for two years for both counts, to run concurrently . L unt timely appealed.

1 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 467–73 (1966) (listin g Miranda warnings)

.STATE v. LUNT Decision of the Court

3 ¶5 This court has jurisdiction over Lunt ’s timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12

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

DISCUSSION

¶6 The court has reviewed and considered counsel ’ s brief. The court has searched the entire record for reversible error. See State v. Clark
, 196 Ariz. 530, 537
, ¶ 30 (App. 1990) (providing guid elines for briefs when counsel has determined no arguable issues to appeal). Searching the record and reviewing the briefs reveals no reversible error. The record shows Lunt was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and counsel was
pres ent at all critical stages. A ll proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The sentence imposed was within the statutory limit. Neither c ounsel nor Lunt raised any issues on appeal

.
CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm Lunt’s convictions and resulting sentence s.
¶8 Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is direct ed to inform Lunt of the status of her appeal and of her future options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue a ppropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

– 85 (1984). Lunt shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if s he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.