STATE v. PINZON
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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/21/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSE MANUEL PINZON, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 11-0521 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. P1300CR2010-00868 The Honorable Tina R. Ainley, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Craig Williams Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Prescott Valley 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), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Jose Manuel Pinzon (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 Anders review of the record. this court conduct an Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 he Defendant was traveling on I-17 in a Ford Taurus when was pulled over by Sergeant tinting on the car windows. Casey Kasun for dark window During the stop, Sergeant Kasun noticed that the windshield had been recently removed and that there was an unusual crack on the windshield. He became suspicious because he knew Ford vehicles have a natural void under the windshield. Defendant was anxious, speaking rapidly, sweating profusely, and stammering more as the conversation went on. were He and the passenger gave different accounts of where they headed and why, and defendant registered owner of the vehicle was. did not know who the Sergeant Kasun issued a repair order/warning to defendant for the dark window tint, and then asked if he could speak with him a little more. Defendant consented to have the car searched and signed a consent form. A drug dog gave an alert along the driver s side and on the back bumper. Sergeant Kasun removed the windshield and found plastic containers filled with two and a half pounds of methamphetamine. 2 ¶3 Defendant was charged with one count of transportation of methamphetamine for sale, a class 2 felony, and one count of possession felony. of methamphetamine The court denied drug paraphernalia, defendant s motion evidence following an evidentiary hearing. a to class 6 suppress After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of transportation of methamphetamine for sale, and paraphernalia. of 10 years not guilty possession of methamphetamine Defendant was sentenced to the presumptive term in prison incarceration credit. ¶4 of and received 358 days of presentence Defendant timely appealed. We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 584-85, 684 P.2d Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 154, 156-57 (1984), obligations in this appeal are at an end. 3 defendant s counsel s ¶5 We affirm defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ ___________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge 4
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.
