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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

STEVEN EUGENE VANESIAN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0919

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-122248-001 DT

The Honorable David V. Seyer, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Lawrence S. Matthew

Counsel for Appellant

Steven Eugene Vanesian, San Luis

Appellant 

FILED 2-1-2018
STATE v. VANESIAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge:

¶1 Steven Eugene Vanesian (“Appellant”) appeals his 

convictions and sentences for possession or use of dangerous drugs and 

possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in 

accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating that he has

searched the record on appeal and has found no arguable question of law 

that is not frivolous. Appellant’s counsel therefore requests that we review

the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 

(App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible 

error). This court allowed Appellant to file a supplemental brief in propria 

persona, and Appellant has done so, but declined to raise any issues on

appeal.

¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona 

Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 

sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2016), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). 

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶3 On June 26, 2015, a grand jury indicted Appellant on three 

counts: misconduct involving weapons, a class four felony; possession or 

use of dangerous drugs, a class four felony; and possession of drug 

paraphernalia, a class six felony.

¶4 Before trial, Appellant moved to sever count one from the 

remaining counts, and the trial court granted Appellant’s motion. After 

trial on count one, the jury found Appellant not guilty of misconduct 

involving weapons.

 

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

and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 

181 Ariz. 62, 64 (App. 1994).
STATE v. VANESIAN

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 The State proceeded to trial on counts two and three. At trial,

the State presented the following evidence: On May 14, 2015, Mesa Police 

officers stopped Appellant for driving without functioning brake lights. 

The officers ran a search on Appellant’s license and arrested him for driving 

with a suspended license. Following Appellant’s arrest, his vehicle was 

subject to a 30-day impound and the officers accordingly conducted an 

inventory search of the vehicle. Upon searching his vehicle, the officers 

found a metal clipboard which contained some of Appellant’s personal 

documents, such as pawn receipts in his name, and methamphetamine and 

syringes. The officers additionally found a spoon with methamphetamine

residue. Appellant admitted to owning the clipboard, but when the officers 

asked whether the methamphetamine was his, Appellant said he did not

know anything about the methamphetamine and syringes that were found.

¶6 On cross examination Appellant’s counsel elicited testimony 

from the officers that Appellant did not appear to be under the influence 

when arrested and that the officers did not conduct any DUI-type testing 

on Appellant at his arrest. Appellant did not testify at trial.

¶7 The jury found Appellant guilty as charged of possession of 

drug paraphernalia and possession or use of dangerous drugs. The State 

alleged one historical prior for misconduct involving weapons, a class four 

felony, as an aggravating factor at sentencing. The trial court subsequently 

found, based on Appellant’s admission, that Appellant had been convicted 

of one prior felony. In his defense, Appellant presented numerous letters 

of support from family and friends. The court considered the aggravating 

and mitigating factors and heard from both parties before sentencing

Appellant to three years’ imprisonment for his possession or use of 

dangerous drugs conviction and one year imprisonment for his possession 

of drug paraphernalia conviction. Appellant’s sentences are to be served 

concurrently and the court credited Appellant for 48 days of presentence 

incarceration credit on each count.

¶8 Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal on September 6, 

2016, which was dismissed. Appellant then filed a subsequent notice of 

appeal, which we accepted.

ANALYSIS

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

find none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30. The 

evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdicts. 

Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. The 
STATE v. VANESIAN

Decision of the Court

4

proceedings were conducted in compliance with Appellant’s constitutional 

and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

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

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

Counsel need do no more than inform Appellant of the status of the appeal 

and of his future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue 

appropriate for petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State 

v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the 

date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶11 Appellant’s convictions and sentences are affirmed.