STATE OF ARIZONA v. WILLIE JOE BELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND M AY 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. JULY 24 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. WILLIE JOE BELL, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2008-0374 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20074068 Honorable Richard S. Fields, Judge AFFIRMED DiCampli, Elsberry & Hunley, LLC By Anne Elsberry Tucson Attorneys for Appellant H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 Appellant Willie Joe Bell was charged with possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited possessor, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of possession of a narcotic drug for sale. A jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony, and two counts of possession of a narcotic drug, a lesser-included offense of possession of a narcotic drug for sale, class four felonies. The prohibited possessor count was dismissed. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Bell on three years probation, to be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed in another matter. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969); and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), stating she has conscientiously reviewed the record without finding any arguably meritorious issues for appeal. She asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Bell did not file a supplemental brief. ¶2 We have reviewed the record in its entirety, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts, and find that it contains sufficient evidence to support Bell s convictions. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Bell s convictions and the court s imposition of probation. JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: ________________________________________ PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge ________________________________________ JOHN PELANDER, Judge 2
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.
