NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.

RUBEN TELSFOR ARCHULETA, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0192

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-107503-001

The Honorable Dawn M. Bergin, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Paul J. Prato

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. ARCHULETA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Patricia K. Norris delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

N O R R I S, Judge:

¶1 Ruben Telsfor Archuleta timely appeals from his convictions 

and sentences for possession or use of dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony, 

Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-3407 (Supp. 2013), and possession of drug 

paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, A.R.S. § 13-3415 (2010). After searching 

the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not 

frivolous, Archuleta’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. 

Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the 

record for fundamental error. This court granted counsel’s motion to 

allow Archuleta to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he did 

not do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental 

error and therefore affirm Archuleta’s convictions and sentences.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

¶2 On February 4, 2012, Officer P. saw Archuleta walking along 

a street with an open beer bottle. When Officer P. pulled alongside 

Archuleta, Archuleta put the bottle in his pants pocket. Officer P. stopped 

his patrol car and approached Archuleta on foot, and Archuleta pulled the 

bottle out of his pocket and placed it on the street. At that point, Officer P. 

saw a plastic bag containing a white substance he believed to be 

methamphetamine protruding between Archuleta’s fingers. Officer P. 

asked Archuleta “how much drugs did he have on him,” and Archuleta

responded that he only had “about a gram or less of meth.” Archuleta 

tried to run away, but police eventually apprehended and arrested him. 

¶3 A jury convicted Archuleta of possession or use of 

dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. At sentencing, 

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

the jury’s verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Archuleta. 

State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 
STATE v. ARCHULETA

Decision of the Court

3

Archuleta admitted to two prior felony convictions after the superior 

court advised him of the rights he was waiving and the consequences of 

his admission of the prior felony convictions. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.6, 

17.2. The superior court sentenced Archuleta to seven years 

imprisonment on the possession or use of dangerous drugs conviction and 

three years imprisonment on the possession of drug paraphernalia 

conviction and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Archuleta 

received 64 days presentence incarceration credit. 

DISCUSSION

¶4 We have reviewed the entire record for reversible error and 

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Archuleta received a 

fair trial. Archuleta was voluntarily absent from trial and therefore 

waived his presence under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.1. He 

was, however, represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings.

¶5 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports 

the verdicts. The jury was properly comprised of eight members and the 

court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, 

Archuleta’s presumption of innocence, the State’s burden of proof, and the 

necessity of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and 

considered a presentence report, Archuleta was given an opportunity to 

speak at sentencing, and his sentences were within the range of acceptable 

sentences for his offenses.

CONCLUSION

¶6 We decline to order briefing and affirm Archuleta’s 

convictions and sentences.

¶7 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligations 

pertaining to Archuleta’s representation in this appeal have ended. 

Defense counsel need do no more than inform Archuleta of the outcome 

of this appeal and his future options unless, upon review, counsel finds an 

issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by 

petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 

156-57 (1984).
STATE v. ARCHULETA

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 Archuleta has 30 days from the date of this decision to 

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

the court’s own motion, we also grant Archuleta 30 days from the date of 

this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration.