STATE OF ARIZONA v. TIFFANY MARIE PESINA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 DEC 27 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TIFFANY MARIE PESINA, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0301 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY Cause No. S1100CR201100451 Honorable Boyd T. Johnson, Judge AFFIRMED Harriette P. Levitt E S P I N O S A, Judge. Tucson Attorney for Appellant ¶1 After a jury trial held in her absence, appellant Tiffany Pesina was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale and transportation of marijuana for sale. The jury found that the amount of marijuana far exceeded the threshold amount, see A.R.S. § 13-3405(B)(6), (11), and that Pesina committed the offense in the presence of an accomplice, see A.R.S. § 13-701(D)(4). The trial court sentenced her to aggravated, concurrent six-year prison terms. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel also has 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. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. See Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 100. Pesina 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 established that, following a high-speed chase, a highway patrol officer stopped the vehicle in which Pesina was riding as a passenger. Pesina was laughing as the officer ordered [her and the driver] at gunpoint to the ground face down. Officers noted a strong smell of the odor of marijuana inside the vehicle, and subsequently discovered 2 four bundles of marijuana weighing four pounds or more inside the trunk of the vehicle. We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury s findings of all of the elements necessary for Pesina s convictions, see A.R.S. § 13-3405(A)(2), (4), and (B)(6), (11), and the sentences imposed are authorized by law, see A.R.S. § 13-702(D). ¶4 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; Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. Accordingly, Pesina s convictions and sentences are affirmed. /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 3
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.
