State v. Carter

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: 03/06/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHRISTI CAY CARTER, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 11-0273 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2010-132574-003 DT The Honorable Joseph C. Welty, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Eaton Law Office By Pamela J. Eaton Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T I M M E R, Judge ¶1 Christi Cay Carter appeals from her convictions and resulting sentences after a jury found her guilty of one count of possession involving of weapons, paraphernalia. with dangerous Smith v. and drugs, two counts one of count of misconduct possession of drug Carter s counsel filed a brief in accordance 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 on appeal, she found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. This court granted Carter an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but she has not done so. We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031, and -4033 (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 Carter was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Carter all her rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. disposition falls within the range prescribed by law. 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. 2 Carter s Clark, CONCLUSION ¶3 After the filing of this decision, counsel s obligations pertaining to Carter s representation in this appeal have ended. status of Counsel need do no more than inform Carter of the the appeal and Carter s future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Carter shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm Carter s convictions sentences. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Maurice Portley, Presiding Judge /s/ Andrew W. Gould, 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.