Court Opinion

ID: 9366355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 17:02:29.480908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.651223
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

                      JODIE LEE GOLLIHAR, Appellant.

                              No. 1 CA-CR 21-0437
                                FILED 1-26-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                         No. S8015CR202001085
               The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

                                   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. GOLLIHAR
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1             Jodie Lee Gollihar appeals his convictions and sentences for
possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. After searching
the entire record, Gollihar's defense counsel identified no arguable question
of law that is not frivolous. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), defense counsel asks this
Court to search the record for fundamental error. Gollihar was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona but has not done
so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Gollihar's convictions and
sentences.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2             On September 26, 2020, Gollihar was involved in a fight and
taken to Kingman Medical Center. At the hospital, a Mohave County
Sheriff's Office deputy found a round, metal container with a clear lid in
Gollihar's pants pocket. The container held a crystalline substance that
tested positive for methamphetamine.

¶3           The State charged Gollihar with (1) possession of dangerous
drugs (methamphetamine), a class 4 felony, under A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1);
and (2) possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine), a class 6
felony, under A.R.S. § 13-3415(A).1 The superior court conducted a jury
trial on August 24, 2021, during which the deputy and a forensic scientist
testified.

¶4             At trial, the deputy testified about finding a round container
in Gollihar's left, front pant pocket that contained a crystal-like substance.
The State then introduced the container and substance found on Gollihar.
A forensic scientist testified about testing the substance and confirmed it
was methamphetamine. The court denied Gollihar's motion under Arizona

1The State originally also charged Gollihar with aggravated assault, a class
4 felony, but moved to dismiss that charge before trial.

                                      2
                          STATE v. GOLLIHAR
                          Decision of the Court

Rule of Criminal Procedure ("Rule") 20 and the jury convicted Gollihar as
charged.

¶5            At sentencing, the court found that the State had proved four
prior felony convictions and that Gollihar was a category three repetitive
offender. The court sentenced Gollihar to a presumptive ten-year term of
imprisonment for count one, and a presumptive three-and-three-quarter-
year concurrent term of imprisonment for count two.

¶6            Gollihar timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under
A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

                              DISCUSSION

¶7             Our review of the record reveals no fundamental error. See
Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. All proceedings were conducted in compliance with
the Rules, and the record reveals that counsel represented Gollihar and
Gollihar was present at all stages of the proceedings. See Ariz. R. Crim. P.
6.1, 19.2. The State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could
determine Gollihar's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. West, 226
Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 (2011). The jury was comprised of eight members. See
A.R.S. § 21-102(B). The superior court properly instructed the jury on the
presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the elements of the
charged offenses. The court received a presentence report. Ariz. R. Crim.
P. 26.4. The court afforded Gollihar an opportunity to speak at sentencing,
imposed sentences within the statutory limits, and stated on the record the
evidence and factors it considered in imposing the sentences. See A.R.S.
§§ 13-701, -703; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 26.9-26.10.

                                     3
                           STATE v. GOLLIHAR
                           Decision of the Court

                              CONCLUSION

¶8              We affirm Gollihar's convictions and sentences. Upon the
filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform Gollihar of the status of
the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no further obligations
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). Gollihar shall have 30 days from the date of this
decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration
or petition for review.

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

                                        4