State v. Schwarz

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. ) ) PAUL SCHWARZ, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 05/22/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls No. 1 CA-CR 11-0719 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-158595-001 DT The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona 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 Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Paul Schwarz appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of possession or use of dangerous drugs. Counsel for Schwarz filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. Schwarz was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. is to review the entire record for State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). favorable to We view the facts in the light most sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Schwarz. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. (1989). 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 Finding no reversible error, we affirm. BACKGROUND ¶3 Schwarz was charged by direct complaint of one count of possession or use of dangerous drugs, a class 4 felony, in violation of (Supp. 2011). 1 ¶4 Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-3407(A)(1) The following evidence was presented at trial. Phoenix police officer Baynes was on duty in the area of 32nd Street and Earll. He witnessed Schwarz riding a bicycle southbound in the northbound lanes, playing frogger with the oncoming traffic. Schwarz reached Baynes into his conducted pants 1 a traffic pocket to Absent material revision after the date offense, we cite the statute s current version. 2 of stop. When produce the his alleged identification, a knife fell to the ground. conducted a pat-down for officer safety. Baynes then He felt an object in Schwarz s front pocket, and Schwarz removed a key chain with a screw-top metallic vial attached to it. He asked Schwarz what the vial contained, and Schwarz responded speed, which Baynes knew to mean methamphetamine. Upon opening the vial, he discovered two small baggies of a white chrystalline substance. Baynes conducted a field test on the substance and confirmed it was meth. A criminalist testified that the substance was in fact 2.1 grams of meth, a usable amount. ¶5 A jury found Schwarz guilty as charged. Prior to sentencing, Schwarz stipulated that he had been convicted of three prior felonies. The court sentenced him to a mitigated term of eight and one-half years imprisonment with 109 days of presentence incarceration credit. This timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION ¶6 We have searched error and find none. the entire record for reversible We note, however, that the trial court failed to engage in a proper colloquy with Schwarz in connection with his decision to stipulate to the existence of three prior felony convictions. prior conviction is See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17.6 ( Whenever a charged, an admission thereto by the defendant shall be accepted only under the procedures of this rule[.] ) Our supreme court has held that Rule 17.6 requires the 3 trial court to conduct a plea-type colloquy in which the court explains the constitutional rights the defendant waives before accepting a defendant s stipulation to the existence of prior felony convictions. State v. Morales, 215 Ariz. 59, 61, ¶¶ 7-8, 157 P.3d 479, 481 (2007). advise Schwarz of effect waiving those colloquy was his constitutional rights insufficient, intelligent and voluntary. ¶7 Because the trial court did not However, would and rights have on Schwarz s or his explain the sentence, the stipulation was not See id. at ¶ 10. [u]nder fundamental error review, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion to show both that the error was fundamental and that it caused him prejudice. Id. Generally, the defendant prejudice would is not established have admitted by the showing fact of conviction had the colloquy been [properly] given. ¶ 11, 157 P.3d at 482. that the prior Id. at 62, But when there is reliable evidence of the defendant s prior conviction in the record, there is no need to remand for this determination. Id. at ¶ 13 (concluding there would be no point in remanding for a hearing merely to again admit copies of the defendant s conviction records that were already admitted at a pretrial hearing). ¶8 Here, the State submitted into evidence at sentencing a certified copy of an Arizona Department of Corrections pen pack which listed Schwarz s three prior convictions, along with 4 his name, birth date, physically identifying information, and a photograph. record, which Schwarz match stated those his name listed on and birth the pen date on pack. the Thus, consistent with Morales, we conclude it is unnecessary to remand for a hearing because Schwarz cannot establish prejudice. ¶9 All of the other proceedings were conducted accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. in The record shows Schwarz was present and represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Schwarz s conviction and sentence. CONCLUSION ¶10 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Schwarz of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). thirty Schwarz shall have days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so 5 desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ ___________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 6

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.