FILED BY CLERK
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
SEP 14 2010
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION TWO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF ARIZONA
DIVISION TWO
THE STATE OF ARIZONA,
Appellee,
v.
STEPHANIE DAWN RAMIREZ,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2 CA-CR 2010-0014
DEPARTMENT A
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication
Rule 111, Rules of
the Supreme Court
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
Cause No. CR20084971
Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
West, Christoffel & Zickerman, PLLC
By Anne Elsberry
Tucson
Attorneys for Appellant
H O W A R D, Chief Judge.
¶1
Appellant Stephanie Ramirez was convicted after a jury trial of transporting
more than two pounds of marijuana for sale. The trial court sentenced her to a mitigated
term of three years’ imprisonment.
¶2
Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue to
raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97
(App. 1999), counsel has also provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the
case with citations to the record, [so ]this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact
thoroughly reviewed the record.” Id. We have reviewed the record in its entirety and are
satisfied it supports counsel’s recitation of the facts.
Ramirez has not filed a
supplemental brief.
¶3
Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdicts, see
State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence, along
with reasonable inferences from the evidence, established Ramirez had been riding in an
“escort vehicle” for a van that contained 324 pounds of marijuana when she attempted to
help the van’s driver evade pursuing law enforcement officers.
¶4
We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements
necessary for Ramirez’s convictions, and her sentences are within the authorized range.
See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-3405(A)(4), (B)(11). In our examination of the record
pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting
further appellate review.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
Accordingly, we affirm
Ramirez’s convictions and sentences.
/s/ Joseph W. Howard
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
CONCURRING:
/s/ J. William Brammer, Jr.
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge
/s/ Philip G. Espinosa
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
2
