NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

RODNEY CLARK SUTTON, Appellant.

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

Counsel for Appellant
STATE 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, 104 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 HISTORY2

¶3 On March 21, 2012, the State charged Appellant with one 

count of attempt to commit acquisition or administration of a narcotic drug 

(oxycodone), a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-1001 and 13-

3408. The State further alleged that Appellant had three historical prior 

felony convictions.

 

1 We cite the current Westlaw version of the applicable statutes 

because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred.

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: At 7:15 p.m. on January 28, 2012,

Appellant entered a drugstore in Tempe and handed the pharmacist a 

prescription. The pharmacist questioned the legitimacy of the prescription 

and asked Appellant for his identification, which he provided. Shortly 

after, the pharmacist contacted the doctor whose name appeared on the 

prescription.

¶5 The doctor confirmed he did not 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 that the name 

of his practice was misspelled, the prescription contained an incorrect 

address for his practice, the prescription was inconsistent with the typical 

way he would prescribe oxycodone, and the signature did not match his 

own.

¶6 After confirming the prescription was not written by the 

doctor, the pharmacist contacted the police, providing them with a 

description of Appellant. The police asked the pharmacist to watch

Appellant while they sent an officer. Appellant stayed inside the drugstore

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, Officer Guzman saw Appellant leave the 

store, noticed Appellant matched the description provided by the 

pharmacist, and detained him.3 The other officer soon arrived.

¶8 After detaining Appellant outside 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 rights pursuant to Miranda4 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 restaurant. 

Mark told Appellant if he filled a prescription for ninety oxycodone pills, 

 

3 At trial, Officer Guzman identified Appellant as 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 filled it out with Appellant’s name on it in front of 

Appellant.

¶10 The jury found Appellant guilty as charged. At sentencing, 

Appellant admitted having two historical prior felony convictions. The 

trial court sentenced Appellant to a mitigated term of 7.5 years’ 

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 Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, 

¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and 

supports the verdict, and the sentence was within the statutory limits. 

Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages 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 counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Appellant’s representation 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 for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140 

Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). 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.