State v. Maples
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. REBEKAH JEAN MAPLES, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/15/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 10-0936 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-116272-001 DT Carolyn K. Passamonte, Commissioner AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals and Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry J. Adams, 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), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d (defendant) 878 has (1969). advised us Counsel that, for Jean Maples searching after Rebekah 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 propria persona, and she has not done so. ¶2 Defendant and an accomplice used a fake prescription in order to obtain 120 Oxycodone pills at a Walgreens drivethrough pharmacy in Phoenix. When defendant came back to pick up the pills, the police blocked defendant s car in the drivethrough. Police took defendant to a patrol car and gave her Miranda warnings. ¶3 Defendant admitted that one of her friends provided her with fake prescriptions to get filled at Walgreens and that she would get paid for bringing back the drugs. accomplice loaned her the money to buy the Defendant s pills accomplice would receive some pills as payment. transaction, defendant would have the Defendant s friend would then sell the pills on the streets. particular and For this received fifty dollars. ¶4 suggested Police found two empty bags in defendant s car that that she had recently 2 committed the same crime. Defendant admitted to having recently used forged prescriptions to obtain drugs at other pharmacies in the metro-Phoenix area. ¶5 Defendant acquisition felony. prior or was charged administration with of one count narcotic of drugs, attempted a class 4 The state filed allegations that defendant had two felony convictions, and that the present committed while defendant was on probation. defendant was found guilty as charged. offense was After a jury trial, The state agreed to dismiss the allegation that defendant was on probation, and the trial court dismissed the allegation. an eight-year term in prison. The Defendant stipulated to trial court found that defendant had two prior felony convictions, and sentenced her to the minimum term of eight years in prison.1 Defendant received thirty-eight days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶6 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. 1 We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the Although the trial court s November 23, 2010 minute entry states that defendant received a mitigated sentence for a nondangerous, non-repetitive offense, she actually received the minimum sentence for a class 4 felony and non-dangerous repetitive offense with two prior felony convictions. See A.R.S. § 13-703(J) (2010). At the sentencing hearing, the trial court correctly stated that defendant s conviction was a repetitive offense based upon Defendant s testimony at trial in which she admitted to having the two prior felony convictions for which she is on probation currently. Accordingly, we order that the minute entry be corrected to reflect that defendant was sentenced to the minimum sentence, not mitigated sentence, of eight years in prison for a category three repetitive offender. 3 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), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. ¶7 We affirm the 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.
