Court Opinion

ID: 9909860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 16:02:23.274008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:09.557059
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                  NICHOLE RENEE RATHMAN, Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CR 23-0133
                                FILED 12-14-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR202200248
            The Honorable Billy K. Sipe Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Jill L. Evans Attorney at Law, Flagstaff
By Jill L. Evans
Counsel for Appellant
                           STATE v. RATHMAN
                           Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1             Nichole Renee Rathman (“Rathman”) appeals her conviction
and resulting sentence for possession of dangerous drugs, possession of
drug paraphernalia, and disorderly conduct. Counsel for Rathman filed a
brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz.
297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of the record, counsel
found no arguable question of law that was not frivolous. Rathman was
permitted to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Counsel asks this
Court to search the record for arguable issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988); State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537 ¶ 30 (App. 1999). After reviewing
the record, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            Rathman’s neighbor called the police after recording her
fighting outside with other individuals in a domestic dispute. An officer
arrived and began speaking with Rathman, who acknowledged she had a
gun in the purse. Rathman was arrested, and when searching her purse,
officers found a container with .45 grams of methamphetamine in one of
the folds. The State charged Rathman with possession of dangerous drugs,
a class 4 felony, possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, and
disorderly conduct, a class 1 misdemeanor.

¶3            The jury returned a guilty verdict on the felony charges, and
after a bench trial the court found Rathman guilty on the misdemeanor
charge. She had no prior offenses, and no aggravating circumstances were
alleged. The court sentenced Rathman to three years’ probation for
possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia, with
credit for one day served in incarceration, along with fines and surcharges.
The court did not include any punishment for disorderly conduct. Two
weeks after being sentenced, Rathman violated her probation and was
charged with a separate offense. When Rathman agreed to a plea deal, the
court reinstated her probation for three years but revised the expiration

                                       2
                           STATE v. RATHMAN
                           Decision of the Court

date. Rathman timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§ 13-
4031 and 13-4033(A)(1).

                                DISCUSSION

¶4           We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have
reviewed the record for any arguable issues. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We
find none.

¶5             Rathman was present and represented by counsel at all
critical stages of the proceedings. The record reflects that the superior court
afforded Rathman all her constitutional and statutory rights and conducted
the proceedings following the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
evidence presented sufficiently supported the jury’s verdict and the court’s
ruling. The court’s sentence falls within the range prescribed by law, with
proper credit given for presentence incarceration.              The post-trial
proceedings complied with applicable law.

                               CONCLUSION

¶6             We affirm Rathman’s conviction and sentence. Defense
counsel’s obligations pertaining to Rathman’s representation in this appeal
will end after informing Rathman of the outcome of this appeal and her
future options, unless counsel’s review reveals an issue appropriate for a
petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. See State v. Shattuck, 140
Ariz. 582, 584–85 (1984).

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                         3