NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COUR T 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee
,

v.

TAUKIHAAMEA TUIONE PULOTU, Appellant

.
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0491

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2014-103527-001 The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Eric Knobloch Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Kevin D. Heade Counsel for AppellantSTATE v. PULOTU Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered th e decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen an d Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

O R O Z C O , Judge:

¶1 Taukihaamea Tuione Pulotu a ppeals his conviction for one count of possession or use of mariju ana, a class 1 misdemeanor. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In July 2013, Officer Mary O’Neill of the Chandler Police Department arrested Pulotu after a traffic stop in Chandler. Following the arrest, officers searched Pulotu and foun d several personal items, including a wallet. Inside the wallet, Officer O’ Neill discovered Pulotu’s credit cards, some cash and a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance that Pulotu confirmed as being marijuana.

¶3 Pulotu was charged with one co unt of possession or use of marijuana, a class 6 felony. At trial, Officer O’Neill testified that Pulotu confirmed during an interview that he knew the marijuana was in his wallet. Pulotu told her that he took the marijuana from a youth at his church, intending to dispose of it, but he had forgotten to discard it. Pulotu testified he did not know what it was and thought the baggie was empty. Pulotu further testified that he forgot about the baggie and did not throw it away. Pulotu denied ever admitting to an officer that the baggie contained marijuana.

¶4 The trial court did not find Pulotu’s testimony credible and found Pulotu guilty of possession of m arijuana in an amount less than two pounds, a class 1 misdemeanor. Th e trial court suspended Pulotu’s sentence and imposed two years’ probat ion and a $1,200 fine. Pulotu timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Re vised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12 120.21.A.1, 13-4031 and -4033.A.1 (West 2016). 1

1 We cite the current version of a pplicable statutes when no revisions material to this decision have since occurred.STATE v. PULOTU Decision of the Court

3 DISCUSSION

¶5 On appeal, Pulotu asserts that the trial court erred because the State did not present sufficient evid ence proving he knowingly possessed marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction must be based on “substantial evidence.” See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20.a; State v. Mathers , 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990). Whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question of law that we review de novo. See State v. West , 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). “The question is whether th ere was sufficient evidence so that a rational trier of fact could have foun d guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Reinhardt , 190 Ariz. 579, 588 (1997). On appeal, we view the evidence in the “light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant.” Id. at 588-89. “We do not consider if we would reach the same conc lusion as the trier-of-fact, but only if there is a complete absence of probative facts to support its conclusion.” State v. Carlisle , 198 Ariz. 203, 206 (App. 2000) (internal punctuation and citation omitted).

¶6 Pulotu argues that “there was no substantial evidence that [he] knowingly possessed marijuana on or about July 26, 2013.” Under A.R.S. § 13-3405.A.1, “[a] person sh all not knowingly [p]ossess or use marijuana.” “’Knowingly’ means, with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defi ning an offense, that a person is aware or believes that the person’s cond uct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists.” A.R.S. § 13- 105.10(b). “’Possess’ means knowingly to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over property.” A.R.S. § 13-105.34.

¶7 Pulotu argues that because he testified he had forgotten about the marijuana in his wallet, the only evidence showing he had knowing possession of the marijuana illustrated he knowingly possessed it at the time he received the baggie at church. And because no evidence established that the church was within the jurisdiction of the co urt, Pulotu asserts that there was “no substantial evidence that [he] knowingly possessed the baggie while within the jurisdiction of the court.” Instead, Pulotu argues “[a]ll of the evidence at trial supported [his] claim that he had forgotten about the baggie being in his wallet by th e time of his arrest in Chandler.” We disagree.

¶8 Sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s verdict. Officer O’Neill testified that she found the m arijuana in Pulotu’s possession in a wallet with his credit cards and th at during an interview, Pulotu acknowledged his possession of the marijuana. Even though PulotuSTATE v. PULOTU Decision of the Court

4 testified that he forgot about the mari juana in his wallet, the trial court did not find his testimony credible. See State v. Pieck , 111 Ariz. 318, 320 (1974) (acknowledging that the fact-finder “is not compelled to accept the story or believe the testimony of an interested party”).

¶9 We also disagree with Pulotu’s argument that insufficient evidence established the location of the church—where Pulotu acquired the marijuana—within the jurisdiction of the Chandler police. The statute proscribes the knowing possession of marijuana irrespective of where a person takes control of the contraband. See A.R.S. § 13-3405.A. Therefore, it is only relevant that Pulotu possessed the marijuana at the time of his arrest in Chandler. Because we resolv e all reasonable inferences against Pulotu, see Reinhardt , 190 Ariz. at 588-89, there was sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed the marijuana at the time of his arrest.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s verdict.