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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Appellee
,

v.

GILBERT RUBEN MORENO
, Appellant

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0316 FILED 11

- 1

- 2018

Appeal from the Superior Court in La Paz County

No. S1500CR201600253 The Honorable Matthew G. Newman
, Judge

AFFIRMED

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

Craig Williams, Attorney at Law PLLC
, Prescott Valley By Craig Williams C ounsel for AppellantSTATE v. MORENO Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

C A T T A N I , Judge:

¶1 Gilbert Ruben Moreno appeals his conviction of possession of narcotic drugs and possession of drug paraphernali a and the resulting
sentences. Moreno’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon , 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, he found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Moreno was given the opportunity to fil e a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to search the record fo r reversible error. See State v. Clark , 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing the record, we affirm Moreno’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 A Quartzsite police officer pulled over Moreno for speeding and learned that Moreno was driving on a suspended license. A drug detection dog subsequently alerted to the presence of drugs in Moreno’s vehicle , and t he officer found a white substance (later confirmed to be cocaine) inside a pack of cigar ettes on the driver’s side compartment door
, and a glass pipe with burnt residue inside a backpack in the back seat

. After being read his Miranda 1 rights, Moreno admitted that the cocaine belonged to him

. ¶3 The State charged Moreno with possession of narcot ic drugs, a class 4 felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) §§ 13

- 3408(A)(1),

- 3415(A). Moreno moved to
suppress the evidence from the traffic stop, including his statements

. After a suppression hear ing, the superior court ruled that the physical evidence

was admissible because it was found after a probable cause search

. The court also r u led that Moreno’s post

- Miranda statements were admissible,

1 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).STATE v. MORENO Decision of the Court

3 but suppressed Moreno’s pre

- Miranda statements made when he was under arrest and handcuffed

. ¶4 A jury found Moreno guilty as charged, and the superior court sentenced him under A.R.S. § 13

- 901.01 to two years of supervised probation, with credit for 18 days of presentence incarceration. The court ruled that the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction would remain a felony while Moreno was on probation, but that it would be designated a misdemeanor upon his successful completion of probation. Moreno timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶5 We have read and consid ered counsel’s brief and have reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon , 104 Ariz. at 300. We find

none.
¶6 Moreno was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings against him. Moreno was present for portions of the trial, and counsel w aived Moreno’s presence when he was not there. The superior court also instructed the jury that they were not to hold Moreno’s absence against him. The record reflects that the superior court afforded Moreno all his constitutional and statutory rights, a nd that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. Moreno’s sentences fall within the range prescribed by law,

see A.R.S. § 13

- 901.01, with proper credit given for presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION
Moreno’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations pertaining to Moreno’s representation in this appeal will end after informing Moreno of the outcome of this appeal and his future options, un less counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

– 85 (1984 ). OnSTATE v. MORENO Decision of the Court

4 the court’s own motion, Moreno has 30 days fr om the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review.