STATE OF ARIZONA v. EDGAR EDUARDO HERNANDEZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDGAR EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0109 Filed November 8, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20142510005 The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Dean Brault, Pima County Legal Defender By Joy Athena, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. HERNANDEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Staring concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Edgar Hernandez was convicted of possession of less than two pounds of marijuana for sale and possession of more than nine grams of methamphetamine for sale. The trial court sentenced him to presumptive and “slightly mitigated,” concurrent prison terms, the longer of which is 7.5 years. Counsel has 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), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no “meritorious issue to raise on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. Hernandez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed Hernandez and another man met a confidential informant for the state outside a business and sold him approximately 756 grams of marijuana and 28 grams of methamphetamine for $1700. We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13703(B), (I), 13-3405(A)(2), (B), 13-3407(A)(2), (B)(2). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Hernandez’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 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.