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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0742 

 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2014-101550-001 

The Honorable Richard L. Nothwehr, 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 Charles R. Krull 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. MEDINA 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Judge Patricia A. Orozco delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Maurice Portley joined. 

O R O Z C O, Judge: 

¶1 Steven John Medina appeals his conviction and the resulting 

sentence for sale or transportation of marijuana, a class two felony. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 

Ariz. 297 (1969), Medina’s counsel filed a brief indicating he searched the 

entire record, found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous and 

asked this court to review the record for fundamental error. Medina was 

afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona,

but he has not done so. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

¶2 On the evening of January 9, 2014 in Gila Bend, Maricopa 

County Sheriff’s Deputy Sikahema stopped a vehicle being driven by 

Medina for invalid license plates. When he approached the vehicle, Deputy 

Sikahema saw bales in the backseat of Medina’s vehicle and could smell 

marijuana. The bales were packaged in burlap sacks with shoulder straps. 

¶3 Two other men were also in Medina’s vehicle. The men were 

dressed in camouflage with carpets on their feet. Deputy Sikahema testified 

that backpackers typically dress in this manner when they carry marijuana 

through the desert so that law enforcement cannot track them. Deputy 

Sikahema placed Medina into custody and officers transported Medina and 

the bales to the Gila Bend substation. The bales weighed 195 pounds and 

samples tested positive for marijuana. The marijuana was worth between 

$97,500 and $156,000. 

¶4 Medina was charged with one count of knowingly selling or 

transporting an amount of marijuana having a weight of more than two 

pounds, a class two felony. At trial, Medina testified that he pulled over to 

check his oil when the two men came out of the brush beside the road and 

asked if Medina was driving to Phoenix. Medina offered to take them to 

Gila Bend, so the two men loaded their belongings into Medina’s vehicle. 

Medina testified that he did not help them load the belongings, did not see 
STATE v. MEDINA 

Decision of the Court 

3 

their belongings, and only noticed the smell of mesquite or sagebrush. The 

men did not tell Medina that they had marijuana and Medina did not expect 

to be paid for driving the men and their possessions. 

¶5 Deputy Sikahema testified that he did not see the bales being 

placed into Medina’s car. He testified, however, that based on his 

knowledge and experience backpackers carry marijuana across the border 

through the desert, then wait for a vehicle on the side of the highway and 

load the vehicle with the marijuana. The vehicle then transports the 

marijuana to Phoenix or other areas. In over two years of patrolling the Gila 

Bend area, Deputy Sikahema had never heard of people being duped into 

carrying drugs. Deputy Sikahema also testified that it was not common for 

backpackers carrying marijuana to catch a ride with an unknown car that 

might stop. 

¶6 The jury found Medina guilty of sale or transportation of 

marijuana and the marijuana weighed two or more pounds. The jury also 

found an aggravating factor—that Medina committed the crime for 

pecuniary gain. Before sentencing, the trial court found that Medina had 

one prior historical felony in Idaho for aggravated assault using a firearm. 

The trial court sentenced Medina to twelve years’ imprisonment and 

credited him with 263 days of presentence incarceration. Medina timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the 

Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-

120.21.A.1, 13-4031, and -4033.A.1 (West 2015).1 Finding no reversible error, 

we affirm. 

DISCUSSION 

¶7 We review the sufficiency of evidence “in the light most 

favorable to sustaining the conviction.” State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 546, 552 

(1981). All reasonable inferences are resolved against the defendant. Id. A 

reversal of a conviction based on insufficiency of evidence requires a clear 

showing that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

conclusion under any hypothesis whatsoever. State v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 

228, 231, ¶ 6 (App. 2004) (noting that it is the jury’s function, not the court 

of appeals, to weigh the evidence and determine credibility). 

¶8 Under A.R.S. § 13-3405.A.4, a person “shall not knowingly . . . 

[t]ransport for sale, import into this state or offer to transport for sale or 

 

1 We cite the current version of applicable statutes when no revisions 

material to this decision have since occurred. 
STATE v. MEDINA 

Decision of the Court 

4 

import into this state, sell, transfer or offer to sell or transfer marijuana.” A 

violation of this statute “involving an amount of marijuana having a weight 

of two pounds or more is guilty of a class 2 felony.” A.R.S. § 13-3405.B.11. 

Under A.R.S. § 13-701.D.6, the jury must determine and the court must 

consider as an aggravating factor whether “[t]he defendant committed the 

offense as consideration for the receipt, or in the expectation of the receipt, 

of anything of pecuniary value.” 

¶9 The State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

verdict. The smell of the 195 pounds of marijuana in Medina’s vehicle, its 

packaging in bales with shoulder straps, the appearance of the two men in 

camouflage with carpet on their feet, and Deputy Sikahema’s testimony 

regarding drug smuggling patterns near Gila Bend, provided sufficient 

evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Sufficient evidence also supported 

the jury’s finding that Medina sought or expected pecuniary gain. 

¶10 At sentencing, the court found that Medina had one historical 

prior felony conviction that qualified under A.R.S. § 13-105.22(a)(i) and (f). 

“The proper procedure to establish the prior conviction is for the state to 

offer in evidence a certified copy of the conviction . . . and establish the 

defendant as the person to whom the document refers.” State v. Hauss, 140 

Ariz. 230, 231 (1984) (quoting State v. Lee, 114 Ariz. 101, 105-06 (1976)). Here, 

the State presented a certified copy of Medina’s Idaho conviction and 

established through testimony that Medina was in fact the defendant in the 

Idaho case. 

¶11 Because of the prior historical felony and the jury’s finding of 

an aggravating factor, Medina was a category two repetitive offender under 

A.R.S. § 13-703.B, with one aggravating factor under A.R.S. § 13-701.D.6. 

Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-703.I, Medina’s presumptive sentence 

was 9.25 years, with a maximum aggravated term of twenty-three years. 

The trial court sentenced Medina to twelve years’ imprisonment, which 

falls within the permitted range under A.R.S. § 13-703.I. The trial court also 

credited Medina with 263 days of presentence incarceration. Because the 

trial court properly calculated Medina’s sentence and credited him the 

correct number of days, the sentence was legal. 

¶12 In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, the trial court 

fined Medina $150,000. Under A.R.S. § 13-3405.D, the court shall order a 

person convicted of violating any provision of A.R.S. § 13-3405 to pay a fine 

“not less than seven hundred fifty dollars or three times the value as 

determined by the court of the marijuana involved in or giving rise to the 

charge, whichever is greater,” but not more than $150,000. The minimum 
STATE v. MEDINA 

Decision of the Court 

5 

value of the marijuana here was estimated at $97,500. Therefore, the fine 

imposed by the trial court was proper. 

CONCLUSION 

¶13 We have read and considered counsel’s brief. We have 

carefully searched the entire appellate record for reversible error and have 

found none. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 541, ¶ 49 (App. 1999). All of 

the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. We find substantial evidence supported the jury’s 

guilty verdict. Medina was represented by counsel at all critical stages of 

the proceedings. At sentencing, Medina and his counsel were given an 

opportunity to speak, and the court imposed a legal sentence and fine. For 

the foregoing reasons, Medina’s conviction, sentence and fine are affirmed. 

¶14 Counsel’s obligations pertaining to Medina’s representation 

in this appeal have ended. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584 (1984). 

Counsel need do nothing more than inform Medina of the status of the 

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 id. at 585. Medina shall have thirty days from the date of this 

decision to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review. 

¶15 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Medina’s conviction and 

sentence.