State v. McFarland
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. 31.34 DIVISION ONE FILED: 10-14-2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SCOTT M. MCFARLAND, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 09-0868 DEPARTMENT S MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-107347-001 DT The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge Pro Tempore The Honorable Pendleton Gaines, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Joel M. Glynn, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T I M M E R, Chief Judge ¶1 Scott M. McFarland ( McFarland ) appeals his conviction and resulting sentence after a jury convicted him of possession or use of dangerous drugs, a class four felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-3407 (2010). 1 McFarland s counsel 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. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record reversal. on appeal, he found no arguable grounds for This court granted McFarland an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 and 13-4033(A) (2010). For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION ¶2 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969). We find none. The record shows that McFarland was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded McFarland all his rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona 1 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Absent material revisions after the date of an alleged offense, we cite a statute s current version. 2 McFarland s sentence falls within the range prescribed by law. Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. CONCLUSION ¶3 After obligations appeal have the pertaining ended. filing to of this McFarland s Counsel need do decision, counsel s representation no more in than this inform McFarland of the status of the appeal and McFarland s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission review. to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). McFarland shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm McFarland s conviction sentence. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Daniel A. Barker, Judge /s/ Michael J. Brown, Judge 3 and
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.
