State v. Lara-Contreras

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 STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) MIGUEL ANGEL LARA-CONTRERAS, ) ) Appellant. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 02/02/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0219 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-172608-001 DT The Honorable George H. Foster, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Sharmila Roy Attorney for Appellant Laveen W I N T H R O P, Judge ¶1 Miguel Lara-Contreras ( Appellant ) appeals his convictions and sentences for possession for sale of narcotic drugs and possession of marijuana. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. Appellant s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error). Although this court granted Appellant the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, he has not done so. ¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2001), and 13-4033(A) (Supp. 2009). Finding no reversible error, we affirm Appellant s convictions and sentences. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 sustaining We review the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict against Appellant. and resolve all reasonable inferences State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994). ¶4 On November 26, 2007, a grand jury indicted Appellant, charging him with Count I, possession of narcotic drugs for sale, a class two felony, and Count II, possession of marijuana, 2 a class six felony. The State later alleged that Appellant had two historical prior felony convictions. ¶5 At trial, the State elicited the following facts: On November 9, 2007, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Officer Strong of the Phoenix Police Department was performing police surveillance in an unmarked vehicle. approximately Strong three noticed Appellant two through He observed Appellant park a maroon van parking men the spaces approach open away the driver s from van side handed a pebble-like object to each man. away, and Appellant began to drive away. him. and hand window. Officer money to Appellant The two men walked Officer Strong radioed a nearby uniformed police officer, who conducted a traffic stop of Appellant s vehicle. The officers searched Appellant and found the marijuana, and in van, they found crack cocaine. Officer Strong testified that Appellant admitted to the officers that he sold drugs to make money, and that he had just done so. Another police officer testified at trial that the quantity of crack cocaine found with Appellant indicated that Appellant probably intended to sell the cocaine. ¶6 Appellant testified at trial that he was not selling drugs and that he did not admit doing so to the police officers. He claimed that the drugs found in his possession were for personal use, and he purchased them from the two men who had 3 approached him. He also admitted having a prior felony conviction. ¶7 The jury found Appellant guilty as charged. At sentencing, the trial court determined that Appellant had two historical prior Appellant to felony convictions. concurrent, mitigated The terms court of sentenced eleven years imprisonment in the Arizona Department of Corrections for Count I, and three years imprisonment for Count II. The court also credited Appellant for 502 days of pre-sentence incarceration. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. ANALYSIS ¶8 We have reviewed error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdicts, and Appellant s Appellant was sentences represented was were by given within counsel the the at statutory all stages opportunity to limits. of the speak at proceedings and sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶9 After obligations appeal have filing pertaining ended. of to this decision, Appellant s Counsel need 4 do defense counsel s representation no more than in this inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. for See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. III. CONCLUSION ¶10 Appellant s convictions and sentences are affirmed. _____________/S/_____________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge CONCURRING: _______________/S/_________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge ______________/S/__________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 5

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.