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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

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

Counsel for Appellant
STATE 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 paraphernalia 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 file a supplemental brief, but did not do so. Counsel asks this court to 

search the record for 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 the officer found a white substance (later confirmed to be 

cocaine) inside a pack of cigarettes 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 Miranda1 rights, Moreno admitted that the cocaine belonged 

to him.

¶3 The State charged Moreno with possession of narcotic 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 hearing, the superior court ruled that the physical evidence 

was admissible because it was found after a probable cause search. The 

court also ruled 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 considered 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 waived 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, and 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, unless 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). On 
STATE v. MORENO

Decision of the Court

4

the court’s own motion, Moreno has 30 days from the date of this decision

to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition 

for review.