STATE OF ARIZONA v. JULIE ANN CROSSER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JULIE ANN CROSSER, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0214 Filed March 7, 2014 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Gila County Nos. CR201100673 and CR201300124 (Consolidated) The Honorable Peter J. Cahill, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Emily Danies, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CROSSER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge VÃ¡squez authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Miller and Judge Brammer1 concurred. V Ã S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 In two consolidated cases appellant Julie Crosser was convicted after a jury trial, portions of which she did not attend, of possession of drug paraphernalia, use of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine), and driving with a drug defined in A.R.S. § 133401 or its metabolite in her body. Counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing she found no arguable issue of law to raise on appeal and requesting that this court review the record for fundamental error. Crosser has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdicts, State v. Boozer, 221 Ariz. 601, ¶ 2, 212 P.3d 939, 939 (App. 2009), substantial evidence established that after a Gila County Sheriff s deputy stopped Crosser for a traffic violation he observed signs suggesting she was under the influence of methamphetamine. His drug-detection canine alerted to the vehicle Crosser had been driving and to Crosser s purse, which was inside the car. Crosser consented to the search of the car and the officer searched it. He also searched the purse, and found a baggie inside with methamphetamine residue. Subsequent investigation, which 1The Hon. J. William Brammer, Jr., a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty and is assigned to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court. 2 STATE v. CROSSER Decision of the Court included urinalysis testing, established Crosser had in her body 2 both methamphetamine and its metabolite amphetamine. Thus, substantial evidence showed she had violated A.R.S. §§ 13-3415(A), 13-3407(A)(1) and (B)(1), 13-3401, and 28-1381(A)(3), committing the charged offenses. We have found no error during trial or otherwise that can be characterized as fundamental, prejudicial error. ¶3 Crosser admitted to the state s allegation that she had one historical prior felony conviction. The trial court sentenced her to enhanced, mitigated prison terms of one and three years for possession of drug paraphernalia and use of a dangerous drug, and a six-month jail term for the driving offense, ordering that all terms be served concurrently. The sentences are within the statutory limits and were imposed in a lawful manner. We see no error, much less fundamental error, with respect to the sentences. We affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed. 2 The evidence also established Crosser had in her body a metabolite of tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive ingredient of marijuana. But the state based the driving-related offense on the presence of methamphetamine in her body, and the jury was instructed accordingly. 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.