NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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
, Appell ee ,

v.

RODNEY CLARK SUTTON
, Appell ant

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0796

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012

- 106219

- 001 The Honorable Steven P. Lynch
, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

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

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office
, Phoenix By Christopher V. Johns C ounsel for Appell antSTATE v. SUTTON Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Andrew W. Gould joined.

W I N T H R O P , Presiding Judge:

¶1 Rodney Clark Sutton (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction and sentence for attempt to commit acquisition or administration of narcotic drugs

. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins , 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon , 10 4 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record on appeal and found no question of law that is not frivolous . Appellant’s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark
, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P

. 3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error). Additionally, this court allowed Appellant to file a supplemental brief in propria persona
, but he has not done so.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12

- 120.21(A)(1) (West 2014), 1 13

- 4031, and 13

- 4033(A) . Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

I

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2

¶3 On M arch 21, 2012, the S tate charged Appellant with one count of attempt to commit a cquisition or administration of a narcotic drug (o xycodone), a class four felony
, in violation of A.R.S. § § 13

- 1001 and 13

- 3408

. The S tate further al leged that Appellant had t hree historical prior felony convictions.

1 We cite the current Westlaw version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have since occurr ed.

2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper
, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994).STATE v. SUTTON Decision of the Court

3 ¶4 Appellant did not appear for his scheduled trial. At trial, the State presented the following evidence: A t 7:15 p.m. on January 28, 2012
, Appellant entered a drugstore in Tempe and handed the pharmacist a
presc rip tion. T he pharmacist questioned the legitimacy of the prescriptio n and asked Appellant for his identification, which he provided. S hortly after , the pharmacist contacted the doctor whose name appeared on the prescription.

¶5 The doctor conf irmed he did n ot write the prescription presented to the pharmacist by Appellant

. At trial, the doctor testified he had never seen or treated Appellant at his practice. The doctor also testified the prescription was a forgery for several reasons , including t hat the name of his practice was misspelled, the prescription contained an inc orrect address for his practice, the prescription was inconsistent with the typical way he would prescribe o xycodone
, and the s ignature did not m atch his

own.
¶6 After confirming the pr escription was not written by the doctor , the pharmacist contacted the p olice
, providing them with a description of Appellant

. The p olice asked the pharmacist to watch Appel lant while they sent an officer. Appellant stayed inside the drug store for “quite awhile” before leaving

. ¶7 Officer Guzman was one of two officers who responded to the call, and he initially waited outside the drugstore for another officer to arrive

. While waiting for backup
, Offi cer Guzman saw Appellant leave the store, noticed Appella nt matched the description provided by the pharmacist, and detained him. 3 The other officer soo n arrived.

¶8 After detaining Appellant o utside the drugstore, Officer Guzman left Appellant with the other officer
, and went inside to speak with the pharmacist and retrieve the questioned prescription

. Officer Guzman returned outside to read Appellant his r ights pursuant to Miranda 4 and interview him.

¶9 Appellant told Officer Guzman that he was asked to fill a prescription by a man named Mark, who Appellant met at a res taurant. Mark told Appellant if he filled a prescription for ninety o xycodone pills
,

3 At trial, Officer Guzman identified Appellant a s the man he detained outside the drugstore based on pictures shown at trial.

4 See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).STATE v. SUTTON Decision of the Court

4 he would receive ten pills as payment. Appellant admitted to Officer Guzman that he knew the prescription was fraudulent because it was blank initially
, and Mark f illed it out with Appellant ’ s name on it in front of Ap pellant.

¶10 The jury found Appellant guilty as charged . At s entencing, Appellant admitted having two historical prior felony convictions

. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a mitigated term of 7.5 y ears’ imprisonment in the Arizona Department of Corrections, with credit for ninety days of pre

- sentence incarceration. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

¶11 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find none. See Leo n , 104 Ariz. a t 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark , 196 Ariz. a t 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict, and the sentence wa s within the statutory limits. Appellant was represented by counsel at all sta ges of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

¶12 After filing of this decision, defense coun sel’s obligations pertaining to Appellant’s representat ion in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for petition fo r review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

- 85 , 684 P.2d 154, 156

- 57 (198 4). Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

III. CONCLUSION

¶13 Appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.