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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

EMILIO MINJAREZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0860 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2014-103339-001 

The Honorable Hugh E. Hegyi, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Cory Engle 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. MINJAREZ 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Peter B. Swann joined. 

J O N E S, Judge: 

¶1 Emilio Minjarez appeals his convictions and sentences for one 

count of possession of methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, and one count 

of possession of marijuana. After searching the entire record, Minjarez’s 

defense counsel has identified no arguable question of law that is not 

frivolous. Therefore, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this 

Court to search the record for fundamental error. Minjarez was afforded 

the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, which he 

elected not to do. After reviewing the record, we find no error. 

Accordingly, Minjarez’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 On January 20, 2014, around 9:00 p.m., an officer with the 

Phoenix Police Department noticed an irregularity on the license plate of 

the vehicle Minjarez was driving and initiated a traffic stop. Minjarez 

parked and exited the vehicle and gave the officer permission to search his 

person. The officer discovered a small plastic bag in Minjarez’s pants 

pocket containing a white crystalline substance which appeared to the 

officer to be methamphetamine. Minjarez was then placed in handcuffs and 

advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 471 (1966). 

¶3 Minjarez thereafter admitted he used methamphetamine 

earlier in the day, which would be detected in a urine sample, and paid five 

dollars for the bag of methamphetamine the officer found in his pocket. 

Minjarez’s wallet contained another small plastic bag imprinted with a 

picture of “an old style cartoon bong, with a fuse on it, and then a repeating 

 

1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

convictions with all reasonable inferences resolved against the defendant.” 

State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402, 404, n.2, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. 

Valencia, 186 Ariz. 493, 495 (App. 1996)). 
STATE v. MINJAREZ 

Decision of the Court 

3

pattern of ‘stay high’ . . . across the front.” The officer believed the bag had 

previously held methamphetamine based upon the white crystalline 

residue that remained on its interior. 

¶4 When questioned, Minjarez admitted there was a pipe in his 

vehicle and gave the officer permission to retrieve it and search the vehicle. 

While doing so, the officer located a glass methamphetamine pipe in the 

cup holder nearest the center console. In an adjacent cup holder, the officer 

found a white plastic bag containing a green plant-like material believed to 

be marijuana. Minjarez told the officer the items were not his. A recording 

of Minjarez’s conversations with the officer during the stop and following 

his arrest was admitted into evidence. Subsequent testing confirmed the 

clear plastic bag contained methamphetamine, a dangerous drug pursuant 

to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 13-3401(6)(c)(xxxviii),2 and the 

white plastic bag contained marijuana. 

¶5 Minjarez was charged with violations of A.R.S. §§ 13-

3405(A)(1), -3407(A)(1), and -3415(A), which respectively prohibit knowing 

possession of marijuana, knowing possession or use of a dangerous drug, 

and use or possession with intent to use of drug paraphernalia, and the 

matter proceeded to trial. At the close of the State’s case, Minjarez’s counsel 

made an unsuccessful motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. 

¶6 Minjarez then testified in his own defense, denying

knowledge of, possession of, or intent to use any of the items seized by the 

officer. Minjarez surmised during his testimony that his friend Humberto, 

to whom he had given a ride earlier in the day, must have left the marijuana 

and pipe in his car, although he did not see Humberto do so or have any 

conversations with Humberto about these items. And, the second empty 

bag, Minjarez explained, was also Humberto’s because it was located

between some bills Humberto had given him for gas. 

¶7 Minjarez testified he had last worn the pants he was wearing 

at the time of the stop at least a month prior and did not know there was 

methamphetamine in the pocket or how it had gotten there. He explained 

that because he did not know what was in the bag, he had been confused 

by the officer’s questions at the time of the stop, mistakenly believing the 

officer had asked about “meds,” rather than “meth.” Minjarez also testified 

he takes quite a few medications, for which he pays a five dollar copayment, 

 

2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s 

current version. 
STATE v. MINJAREZ 

Decision of the Court 

4

and was referring to that medication when the officer asked what he paid 

for the methamphetamine. Minjarez went on to testify that when the officer 

asked him if a urine sample would reflect methamphetamine use, he again 

misunderstood, believing he had been asked, instead, whether he would be 

willing to provide a urine sample, to which he said “yes.” And, when the 

officer asked about a pipe, Minjarez mistakenly believed he was referencing 

a pipe wrench which Minjarez had in the back of his car. 

¶8 The jury found Minjarez guilty of possession of a dangerous 

drug and possession of marijuana, but not guilty of possession of drug 

paraphernalia. Minjarez admitted one historical prior and was sentenced 

to a mitigated term of three years’ imprisonment for possession of 

methamphetamine and a consecutive term of three years’ probation for 

possession of marijuana. He was also given credit for seventy-five days of 

presentence incarceration. Minjarez timely appealed, and we have 

jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION 

¶9 After reviewing the entire record for reversible error, we find 

none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 (“An exhaustive search of the record has 

failed to produce any prejudicial error.”). Based upon the record, sufficient 

evidence was presented upon which a jury could determine beyond a 

reasonable doubt Minjarez knowingly possessed or used a dangerous drug 

and knowingly possessed marijuana. 

¶10 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Minjarez 

was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present 

at all critical stages. The jury was properly comprised of eight jurors, and 

the record shows no evidence of jury misconduct. See A.R.S. § 21-102(B); 

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.1(a). At sentencing, Minjarez was given an opportunity 

to speak, and the trial court stated on the record the evidence and materials 

it considered and the factors it found in imposing sentences. Additionally, 

the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. § 13-

603(K), -703(B), (I). 

CONCLUSION 

¶11 Minjarez’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the 

filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Minjarez’s 

representation in this appeal have ended. Defense counsel need do no more 

than inform Minjarez of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, 

unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to 
STATE v. MINJAREZ 

Decision of the Court 

5

our supreme court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 

584-85 (1984). 

¶12 Minjarez has thirty days from the date of this decision to 

proceed, if he wishes, with an in propria persona petition for review. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 31.19(a). Upon the Court’s own motion, we also grant Minjarez 

thirty days from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion 

for reconsideration.