State v. Hernandez
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. JOSE MIKE HERNANDEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 04-15-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH No. 1 CA-CR 09-0280 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2008-005777-001 DT The Honorable Sally S. Duncan, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County 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 (1978), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d (defendant) 878 has (1969). advised Counsel us that, for after Jose Mike searching Hernandez the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 An officer undercover went to Arizona defendant s Department residence on of Public July 25, Safety 2007, to purchase illegal drugs. The officer had previously encountered defendant at this location and identified defendant from photographs of residents of that address. Defendant answered the door, and the undercover officer asked him for a forty, street slang for forty dollars worth of illegal drugs, here methamphetamine. Defendant replied that he did not have any but was waiting for a delivery. The officer asked defendant to call when the drugs arrived. Defendant responded that the supplier would not come unless the money was present and asked the officer to leave the money. The officer refused, and defendant suggested that they go to the supplier instead. ¶3 As defendant and the officer were exiting defendant s residence, they encountered another individual, whom defendant invited inside. Defendant and the third individual had a conversation in Spanish that the officer did not understand. 2 After money, the conversation, and defendant the in defendant officer turn gave handed asked defendant to the the officer forty for the which individual. third dollars, This individual opened a small case and removed a scale and a plastic bag containing a crystalline substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. The individual weighed out a small amount of the methamphetamine and directed defendant to retrieve a nearby cellophane placed cigarette the pack wrapper, methamphetamine. methamphetamine to The defendant, into which individual who in turn the individual handed the handed it bagged to the officer. The officer shook hands with defendant and left with the bagged substance, which was later tested and confirmed to be a usable amount (0.9107 grams) of methamphetamine. ¶4 Defendant was arrested and indicted on one count of sale or transportation of dangerous drugs, a class 2 felony. Defendant s first trial, during which he argued that police had misidentified him, resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury. Defendant was retried and convicted. Defendant was sentenced to a mitigated sentence of five years imprisonment with credit for 77 days of presentence incarceration. Defendant appealed. ¶5 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. Defendant asked counsel to raise twelve issues on direct appeal. We find no reversible error 3 pertaining to these claims or otherwise. Additionally, we note that defendant must raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a post-conviction relief petition and has already done so, and that defendant received the correct presentence incarceration credit of 77 days. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance Procedure. So far as adequately represented with the by the Arizona record counsel Rules reveals, at all of Criminal defendant stages of was the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was 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. ¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence. /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.
