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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RAYMOND RUDOLPH HATCHELL, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0898

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201501060

The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Legal Advocate’s Office, Kingman

By Jill L. Evans

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 11-28-2017
STATE v. HATCHELL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court, in which Chief 

Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

B E E N E, Judge:

¶1 This appeal was timely filed in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969) 

following Randall Rudolph Hatchell’s (“Hatchell”) convictions for 

possession of dangerous drugs, a Class 4 felony, and possession of drug 

paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony. Hatchell’s counsel searched the record on 

appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. State v. 

Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999). Hatchell was given the opportunity to file 

a supplemental brief in propria persona but did not do so. Counsel now asks 

this Court to search the record for fundamental error. After reviewing the 

entire record, we affirm Hatchell’s conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶2 On August 11th, 2015, Hatchell was involved in a single-car 

accident. His injuries were treated at the Kingman Regional Medical 

Center. Soon after arriving at the medical center, he was transferred to the 

progressive care unit. A nurse collected Hatchell’s belongings, including a 

black bag, to perform an inventory pursuant to hospital procedure. The 

nurse discovered suspicious items in Hatchell’s bag and contacted security. 

Security contacted the police, and officers confiscated the suspicious items, 

which were later identified as methamphetamine, a scale, and a bong.

¶3 Hatchell was charged by indictment with possession of 

dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), and possession of drug 

paraphernalia. Hatchell proceeded to trial and was found guilty. Based on

his lack of criminal history, Hatchell was sentenced to three years’ 

probation. Hatchell timely appealed his conviction. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona 

 

1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s 

verdict and resolve all inferences against Hatchell. See State v. Fontes, 195 

Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).
STATE v. HATCHELL

Decision of the Court

3

Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12–120.21(A)(1), 13–4031 and 13–

4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶4 The record reflects no fundamental error in pretrial 

proceedings. Hatchell rejected the State’s plea offer, and the superior 

court’s minute entry indicates there was discussion involving the plea 

agreement on multiple occasions. See State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406 (App. 

2000).

¶5 The record also reflects Hatchell received a fair trial. He was 

represented by counsel at all stages of the proceeding against him and was 

present at all critical stages. The jury was properly comprised of eight 

members with one alternate.

¶6 The State presented direct and circumstantial evidence 

sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict. The superior court properly 

denied Hatchell’s Motion for Directed Verdict. The superior court properly 

instructed the jury on the elements of the charges. The key instructions 

concerning burden of proof, presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, 

and the necessity of a unanimous verdict were also properly administered. 

The jury returned a unanimous verdict.

¶7 The superior court received a presentence report, accounted 

for mitigating factors, and properly sentenced Hatchell to a term of three 

years’ supervised probation.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We reviewed the entire record for reversible error and find 

none; therefore, we affirm the conviction and resulting sentence.
STATE v. HATCHELL

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel’s obligation 

pertaining to Hatchell’s representation in this appeal will end. Defense 

counsel need do no more than inform Hatchell 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. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984). On the Court’s 

own motion, Hatchell has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, 

if he wishes, with a pro per motion for reconsideration. Further, Hatchell 

has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he wishes, with a 

pro per petition for review.