State v. Graham
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DIVISION ONE FILED: 01/14/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: RWillingham ) 1 CA-CR 09-0061 ) ) DEPARTMENT D Appellee, ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION v. ) (Not for Publication ) Rule 111, Rules of the ) Arizona Supreme Court) JOHN EDWARD GRAHAM, ) ) Appellant, ) _____________________________ ) STATE OF ARIZONA, Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-114508-001 DT The Honorable John R. Ditsworth, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Spencer D. Heffel, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel for John Edward Graham (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting that this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 The Glendale traffic violation. Police pulled defendant over for a The police officer found a sunglass case containing tubing with a white residue that appeared to be from smoking methamphetamine and a chewing gum tin containing three small plastic bags in defendant s pocket. plastic bags contained a resembled methamphetamine. white crystalline One of the substance that The white substance from the gum tin was found to be a useable quantity of methamphetamine after testing by the Department of Public Safety criminalist. ¶3 Defendant was charged in count one with possession of dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony and in count two with possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. was found guilty on both counts. Defendant Defendant was sentenced to two years of supervised probation. ¶4 We have read and considered counsel=s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. proceedings were conducted in 2 We find none. compliance with See Leon, All of the the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, defendant was adequately represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Defendant=s counsel=s obligations in this appeal are at an end and he need do no more than inform defendant of the options, unless, outcome upon of this review, appeal and counsel finds his future an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). ¶5 We affirm the convictions and imposition of probation. /s/ _________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
