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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND 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

MICHAEL HISHAM SAYEGH, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0430

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-000543-001

The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Spencer D. Heffel

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. SAYEGH

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Maurice Portley joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel 

for Michael Sayegh asks this Court to search the record for fundamental 

error. Sayegh was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in

propria persona. He has not done so. After reviewing the record, we affirm 

Sayegh’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

trial court’s judgment and resolve all reasonable inferences against Sayegh. 

State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 897, 898 (App. 1998).

¶3 At noon on December 28, Detective Galen Davis was sitting 

in an unmarked patrol car in a parking lot. He saw Sayegh also sitting in a 

car in the lot. Another car pulled up and parked next to Sayegh’s car. 

Sayegh got into the front passenger seat of the second car. A “very short” 

time later, Sayegh returned to his car, and the other car sped away. Based 

on his training and experience, Detective Davis decided to talk to Sayegh. 

¶4 When Detective Davis approached Sayegh’s car, he smelled 

marijuana coming from inside the car. He saw Sayegh “putting a quantity 

of marijuana into the bowl of the pipe that was in his lap.” He told Sayegh

to give him the pipe. Sayegh gave him the pipe and marijuana. Sayegh

explained that he bought the marijuana for $20, and he needed to smoke 

marijuana because he had an eating disorder. 

¶5 When asked for identification, Sayegh provided a California 

driver’s license. The detective checked the driver’s license’s photo, and it 

matched the person he was talking to. Because of the California license, 

Detective Davis asked Sayegh for a local address for submitting the charges, 

and Sayegh provided a Phoenix address. Their interaction lasted for 15 

minutes. Later, the detective checked the car’s registration, and it was 

registered to the same person listed on the driver’s license—“Michael
STATE v. SAYEGH

Decision of the Court

3

Sayegh.” When Detective Davis later processed Sayegh’s full name, date of 

birth, and gender in the police’s PACE system, the system retrieved 

Sayegh’s information as provided on his driver’s license.

¶6 Sayegh was charged with one count of possession of 

marijuana and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, both class six 

felonies. The State later moved to designate both offenses as misdemeanors, 

and the court granted its motion. At trial, the parties stipulated that the 

substance involved was 3.5 grams of marijuana, and thus, the only 

contested issue was whether Sayegh was the individual Detective Davis 

encountered that day. 

¶7 Detective Davis made an in-court identification of Sayegh. 

He testified that the circumstances that day, including “[s]omeone parked 

in a vehicle, waiting, another car arrives,” and getting into the second car, 

was suspicious. He emphasized the suspicious nature of Sayegh “actually 

open[ing] the door and [getting] into the car and [sitting] in the front 

passenger seat, and then [he was] only there for a few moments and [then 

he got] back out of the car.” 

¶8 Although nearly three years had passed since Detective Davis

saw Sayegh, he testified that he distinctly remembered the encounter with 

Sayegh for three reasons: because the detective was frustrated that he could 

not get a backup unit to assist him; because he did not immediately arrest

Sayegh, and he does not normally give drug users a “break”; and because 

Sayegh looked “foreign” to him. When asked why he did not arrest Sayegh,

nonetheless, the detective responded that it was a “simple possession 

charge” and he was “satisfied with who [Sayegh] was and his document.” 

When asked whether he had any doubt that the person in the courtroom

was the person he spoke with that day, he responded in the negative. 

¶9 After Detective Davis testified, the State rested its case-inchief. Defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, arguing that the State had not met 

its burden of proving that the individual the detective encountered was 

Sayegh. The court denied the motion and ruled that the State had presented 

substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. 

¶10 Sayegh was the sole defense witness. He testified that he had 

an Arizona driver’s license and never had a California driver’s license, even 

though he worked and lived in California with his uncle. He conceded that 

the car Detective Davis saw that day was registered to him, but it was leased 

for his uncle’s company. The leasing documents were in the glove 
STATE v. SAYEGH

Decision of the Court

4

compartment with his name, address, and social security number. Nine 

other people used that car. Of the seven employees that Sayegh could list at 

trial, four were his first cousins. 

¶11 Sayegh testified that on December 28, he was cleaning carpets 

in apartment units in northern California. He worked either a nine or tenhour day. He had never seen Detective Davis in his life. Sayegh also testified 

that he found out about the charges when his mother told him that the 

police was looking for him. When asked why he did not contact the police 

to file a fraud claim, he responded that he did not know that he could file 

such a claim or that he could even report a crime to the police. The trial 

court found Sayegh guilty of both counts as charged. 

¶12 The trial court conducted the sentencing hearing in 

compliance with Sayegh’s constitutional rights and Arizona Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 26. The court found that both counts were Proposition

2001first strike eligible because they were committed on the same day. For 

both counts, the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of unsupervised

probation for one year, with a condition that he complete 24 hours of 

community service. The court also imposed a fine and administrative fees. 

DISCUSSION

¶13 We review Sayegh’s convictions and sentences for 

fundamental error. See State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 155, 812 P.2d 626, 628 

(1991).

¶14 Counsel for Sayegh has advised this Court that after a diligent 

search of the entire record, he has found no arguable question of law. We 

have read and considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for 

reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All 

of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules 

of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, Sayegh was represented 

 

1 Section 13–901.01, more commonly referred to as “Proposition

200,” provides that an individual convicted of a drug offense involving the 

possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible 

for probation. A.R.S. § 13–901.01. Proposition 200 first strike provides that 

if a person is convicted of his or her first drug offense, then that person will 

be placed on probation, and it does not require that the person be sentenced 

to incarceration. See generally id. Additionally, the individual is required to 

pay a fee and participate in drug counseling and/or education as conditions 

of probation. See id. § 13–901.01(D).
STATE v. SAYEGH

Decision of the Court

5

by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed was 

within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing, and we affirm 

Sayegh’s convictions and sentences.

¶15 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform 

Sayegh of the status of his appeal and of his future options. Defense counsel 

has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue 

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85, 684 P.2d 154, 156–57 

(1984). Sayegh shall have 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for 

review. 

CONCLUSION

¶16 We affirm Sayegh’s convictions and sentences.