NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA

, Appellee

,

v.

MANUEL HERNANDEZ

, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 15

- 0542

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 1998

- 005888
The Honorable Stephen A. Gerst

, Judge (Retired)

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office

, Phoenix By Paul J. Prato

C ounsel for AppellantSTATE v. HERNANDEZ

Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

O R O Z C O

, Judge:

¶1 Manuel Hernandez appeals his convictions and the resulting

sentence for possession of dangerous drugs for sale, a class two felony; transportation of dangerous drugs, a class two felony; and misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony . Pursuant to Anders v. Cal ifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 2 97 (1969), Hernandez ’s counsel filed a brief indicating tha t he searched the entire record, found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous

, and asked this court to review the

record for fundamental error. Hernandez was afforded the opportunity t o file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so.

¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review “the entire record

for reversible error .” State v. Clark , 196 Ariz. 5 30, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999)

. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Hernandez ’s convictions and

sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 On o r a b ou t A p r i l 10

, 199 8

, a n extended undercover operation

culminated in a n afternoon meeting between Hernandez, two other

individuals

, and two undercover detectives, A. and M. , for the sale of five to ten pounds of methamphetamine. O ne of the individuals introduced A. to Hernandez, who was sitting in a gold Cadillac with his two

- year

- old son. After the drug was sample d and money display ed , the parties met to complete the transaction at a different location. Hernandez showed a zip

loc k freezer bag he represented as containing one pound of methamphetamine and explained the seller want ed t o get some money
before he c ould supply the remain ing four to nine pounds

. Some negotiation ensued, after which A. agreed to buy the one pound Hernandez

offered. Phoenix Police Department arrest team moved in, arresting

Hernandez and the two other s. Und er the driver’s seat, where Hernandez was sitting, t he police recovered one pound (450g) of methamphetamine

and a .38 caliber semi

- automatic handgun

.STATE v. HERNANDEZ

Decision of the Court

3 ¶4 Hernandez was indicted with : (1) offer to sell dangerous drugs

, a class two dangerous felony , a count later dismissed by the State ; (2) possession of dangerous drugs for sale , a class t wo felony ; (3) transportation of dangerous drugs , a class two felony ; and (4) misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony

.

¶5 Hernandez fa il e d t o a p p ear at t r i a l in August 2001 and the trial

was held in absentia. A b e n c h w arrant w as i s s u e d

. Thirteen years later, in 2014, Hernandez was apprehended on the warrant.

¶6 At trial, 1 A. identified the person on t he certified booking photograph as the man who he negotiated with over the sale and ultimate purchase of methamphetamine. At the time of the arrest, officers discovered a handgun Herna ndez admitted belonged to him.

¶7 M. testified that she advised Hernandez of his rights pursuant

to Miranda v. Arizona

, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and interviewed Hernandez

, who

asserted he carried the handgun for protection . He admitted he knew the

othe r two individuals , but not A. Hernandez claimed that A. tossed the methamphetamine o nto his lap.

¶8 A c rimin alist testified that he conducted drug tests and

confirmed the recovered substance was 450 grams of methamphetamine. The following items were admitted into evidence: a redacted and certified booking photograph of Hernandez taken on April 10, 1998, the da y he was arrested; a plastic bag containing 450 grams of methamphetamine; a plastic bag containing a .38 caliber handgun and nineteen bullets; and a plastic bag containing one black electronic measuring scale.

¶9 T h e j u ry f o u n d Hernandez gu i l t y o f: p o s s e s si o n o f

d a ng e r ou s d r u g s f o r s a l e ; t ra n s p o r t a ti o n o f d a ng er o u s d r ug s; a n d

m i s c o nd u ct i nv o l v in g w ea p o ns

.

¶10 On July 22, 2015, Hernandez was sentenced to imprisonment
for seven years for p o s s e s si o n o f d a ng e r ou s d r u g s f o r s a l e , five years for

t ra n s p o r t a ti o n o f d a ng er o u s d r ug s , and two and a half years for m i s c o nd u ct

i nv o l v in g w ea p o ns ; all three sentences to run concurrently. Hernandez was

1 B ecause no transcript was available fr om the jury trial in 2001, this

c ourt ordered a testimony reconstruction pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure (Rule) 31.8.f. Hernandez had the opportunity to dispute any omissions or misstatements, but he did not raise any controversy or question as to the form and co ntent of the reconstructed record. See id

.STATE v. HERNANDEZ

Decision of the Court

4 fined $24,000

, forfeited his weapon, and was placed on community supervision pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) § 13

- 603(I).

¶11 Hernandez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant

to Article 6, Section 9

, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. sections 12

- 120.21.A.1, 13

- 4031, and

- 4033.A.1 (West 201 6 ). 2

DISCUSSION

¶12 “We view the facts and all reasonable inferen ces therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions.” State v. Powers , 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2 (App. 2001). A reversal of a conviction based on insufficiency of evidence requires a clear showing that there was not

sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion under any hypothesis

whatsoever. State v. Williams , 209 Ariz. 228, 231, ¶ 6 (App. 2004)

.

¶13 The State charged Hernandez with p o s s e s si o n o f d a ng e r ou s d r u g s f o r s a l e . Under A.R.S. § 13

- 3407.A. 2

, “[a] person shall not knowingly [ p ] ossess a dangerous drug for sale.” Knowingly “means, with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person is aware or believes that the person’s conduct is of that nature o r that the circumstance exists. It does not require any knowledge of the
unlawfulness of the act or omission.” A.R.S. § 13

- 105.10

. (b). Possession “means a voluntary act if the defendant knowingly exercised dominion or control over property. ” A.R.S. § 13

- 105.34. Sale means “an exchang e for anything of value or advantage, present or prospective.” A.R.S. § 13

- 3401. 32

. Methamphetamine is a d angerous drug

. A.R.S. § 13

- 3401.6. ( c ) ( xxxviii )

.

¶14 At trial, the State presented evidence identifying Hernandez

as the man who sold one pound of meth amphetamine to A. by A.’s identification of a certified booking photograph taken on the day of
Hernandez’s arrest. A. further testified he negotiated the sale of methamphetamine with Hernandez , who sh owed him what was represented as methamphetamine. O ne pound of methamphetamine was found under the seat of the car where Hernandez was sitting

. A c riminalist confirmed the drugs recovered as methamphetamine in a laboratory test. Hernandez agreed to accept money for the one pound of methamphetamine

.

2 We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions

material to this decision have since occurred.STATE v. HERNANDEZ

Decision of the Court

5 ¶15 Hernande z was also charged with transportation of dangerous drugs. Under A.R.S. § 13

- 3407.A.7

, “[a] person shall not knowingly [t]ransport for sale . . . a dangerous drug.” Hernandez had the methamphetamine in his car and delivered it to A.

, in exchange for money.

¶16 Hernandez was further charged with m i s c o nd u ct i nv o l v in g

w ea p o ns , which requires “ knowingly [] [c] arrying a deadly weapon

. . . concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation [] [i] n the furtherance of

. . . any other felony offense.” A.R.S. § 13

- 3102 .A.1. ( a ). A. testified the police found a .38 caliber semi

automatic handgun and two magazines containing nineteen bullets under
Hernandez’s seat during arrest

. Additionally , M. testified Hernandez told

her he carried the handgun for protection.

¶17 Based on the evidence, we find there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts.

¶18 The trial court sentenced Hernandez and gave Hernandez

credit for 395 days of presentence incarceration. Because the trial court properly determined the term of imprisonment pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13

- 701.C and

- 702.A.1 (West 1993) and it provided the correct amount of presentence incarceration credit, this was a legal sentence.

CONCLUSION

¶19 We have read and considered counsel’s brief. We have carefully searched the entire appellate record for reversible error. See State
v. Clark , 196 Ariz. 530, 541, ¶ 49 (App. 1999). All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

We find subs tantial evidence supported the guilty verdicts. Hernandez was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. At sentencing, Hernandez and his counsel were given an opportunity to speak

, and the court imposed a legal sentence

. For the f oregoing reasons, we
affirm Hernandez ’s convictions and sentence s

.STATE v. HERNANDEZ

Decision of the Court

6 ¶20 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Hernandez ’s representation in this appeal have ended. See State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584 (1984). Counsel need s to do nothing more than inform Hernandez of the status of the appeal and his future options, unless c ounsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See id. at 585. Hernandez shall have thirt y days from

the date o f this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.