State v. Nelson

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, v. KALANI REIANNE NELSON, Appellant. No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 03-18-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CR 08-0923 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. CR-2008-0079 The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender By Jill L. Evans Attorney for Appellant Kingman B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Kalani Reianne Nelson ( Nelson ) appeals from her convictions and sentences for possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of (cocaine). marijuana, and possession of narcotic drugs Nelson s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Finding no arguable issues to raise, counsel requests that this court search the record for fundamental error. Nelson was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation in this appeal is to review the entire record for reversible error. State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences against Nelson. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 Nelson was charged by indictment with one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-3415 (2001), 1 one count violation of possession of A.R.S. § of marijuana, 13-3405 (Supp. a class 2009), 6 one felony, in count of possession of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony, in violation of A.R.S. § narcotic 13-3408 drugs for (Supp. sale, 2009), a one class 1 2 count felony, of in possession of violation of We cite the current version of the applicable statutes if no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 2 A.R.S. § 13-3408, and one count of possession of marijuana for sale, a class 4 felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3405. 2 The following evidence was presented at trial. ¶4 Acting informant, 3 on the information Lake Havasu obtained City Police from a confidential Department surveillance on a home in Lake Havasu City. conducted After approximately two months of surveillance, they obtained a search warrant for the premises. On the day they planned to execute the warrant, they observed Nelson driving a white pickup truck. into the home s driveway with two male She pulled passengers. The occupants exited the truck for a short period of time, got back in the truck and started backing out of the driveway. Police stopped the vehicle and detained Nelson and the passengers. In the bed of the truck, they observed two camping-style chairs with carrying bags. plastic sack that Inside one of the chair bags was a large contained smaller packages of a substance which was later determined to be cocaine. white Similar packages were found throughout the house and inside the garage. Neither Nelson the or house her nor the boyfriend. truck was Nelson owned admitted or to registered the to police, however, that she had been living in the house for about three 2 Nelson s boyfriend was a co-defendant at the trial and was also indicted on all five charges. 3 Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in preclude any reference to the confidential informant. 3 limine to months with her boyfriend. She denied having any knowledge of the drugs found in the truck or in the house. ¶5 Police officers testified that during the surveillance period, no one other than Nelson and her boyfriend were seen entering or exiting the house. During the search of the home, they found a sock containing three baggies of cocaine. same closet, they found Nelson s birth certificate. found articles bedroom. cabinets of women s clothing strewn In the They also throughout that Police also discovered a bowl in one of the kitchen that contained substances later determined to be marijuana and cocaine, in addition to the packages of marijuana and cocaine in the garage. They also found a Big 5 receipt with Nelson s name on it near the garbage cans in the garage. Nelson was employed by Big 5 at the time of the search. ¶6 The jury found Nelson guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and possession of narcotic drugs but acquitted her on the charges of possession of narcotic drugs for sale and possession of marijuana for sale. The trial court sentenced her to three years probation and she filed a timely notice of appeal. ¶7 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have reviewed the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules 4 of Criminal Procedure. and represented by The record shows that Nelson was present counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, she was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. ¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Nelson of the status of the appeal and her options. Defense counsel has no further obligations, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Nelson has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶9 Accordingly, we affirm sentences. Nelson s convictions and /s/ _______________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _______________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ ______________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge 5

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.