State v. Cole
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. ) ) SANDRA SUZANNE COLE, ) ) Appellant. ) _________________________________________ ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 03/09/2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0270 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-105055-001 DT The Honorable Helene F. Abrams, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Public Defender By Eleanor S. Terpstra, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d (defendant) 878 has (1969). advised us Counsel that, for after Sandra Suzanne searching the Cole entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, and she has not done so. ¶2 Police conducted a welfare check on an apartment after receiving a complaint from the tenant below about a water leak. When the police officer arrived, the door was open, appeared that there may have been a forced entry. and it After the officer knocked and announced his presence, the only response he heard was a muffled female voice. Due to the possible forced entry, the muffled voice, and the running water, the officer entered the apartment to determine if anyone inside was hurt. The officer saw a female, who was bailing water from a puddle near the bathroom, and a male. unresponsive. Another male was on the sofa and Defendant told the officer that she had been living in the apartment for approximately five months, although at trial defendant testified that she did not live there but had stayed there occasionally over the past several months and was there on the day in question to clean the apartment and do 2 laundry. The officer saw a metal spoon with burnt residue and syringes with fluid on a nightstand. Testing revealed that the substance on the metal spoon and inside the syringe was a usable quantity of methamphetamine. ¶3 a The state charged defendant with possession or use of dangerous drug, a class 4 felony, paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. and possession of drug She moved to suppress all evidence, arguing that it was illegally obtained as a result of an inappropriate protective sweep of a home. The state asserted that police made a warrantless entry under the emergency-aid exception and evidentiary suppress. saw hearing, the the evidence in trial court plain view. denied the A jury convicted defendant of both counts. After an motion to Defendant moved for a new trial, alleging that the verdict was contrary to law or the weight of the evidence and that that the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial after the arresting officer revealed that he previously had arrested defendant. The trial court denied the motion after finding that defendant had opened the door to the admission of this evidence and after instructing the jury to disregard the testimony at issue. The trial court left the class six offense undesignated and sentenced defendant to one year of probation on each count, to run concurrently. Defendant appealed. ¶4 We have read and considered counsel=s brief and have 3 searched 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 compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. So far as the record reveals, defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant=s counsel=s obligations in this appeal are at an end. ¶5 We affirm the convictions and sentences. ___/s/________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: _____/s/________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge _____/s/________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 4
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.
