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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RACHEL LUNT, Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0124 

Appeal 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 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Mark E. Dwyer

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 10-29-2020
STATE 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, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 

and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for defendant 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 convictions and resulting sentences. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In May 2018, Wal-Mart employees apprehended Lunt and 

accused her of shoplifting. About forty-five minutes later, Glendale Police 

Department Officer Anthony Johnson arrived and read Lunt the Miranda1

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 quantity 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 The jury found Lunt guilty of both counts, and the trial court 

suspended imposition of sentence and placed Lunt on probation for two 

years for both counts, to run concurrently. Lunt timely appealed.

1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467–73 (1966) (listing 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 guidelines 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 

present at all critical stages. All proceedings were conducted in compliance 

with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The sentence imposed was 

within the statutory limit. Neither counsel nor Lunt raised any issues on 

appeal. 

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm Lunt’s convictions and resulting sentences. 

¶8 Upon filing of this decision, defense counsel is directed 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 appropriate 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 she desires, with 

a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.