State v. Baker

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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 07-29-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) JAMES RAYMOND BAKER, ) ) Appellant. ) ) 1 CA-CR 09-0399 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County Cause No. CR P-1300-CR-0020080767 The Honorable Thomas B. Lindberg, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Abigail Jensen, P.C. By Abigail Jensen Attorney for Appellant Phoenix Prescott W I N T H R O P, Judge ¶1 James Raymond Baker ( Appellant ) appeals his convictions and sentences for possessing a dangerous drug and drug paraphernalia. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law. Appellant s counsel therefore requests that we review the record for fundamental error. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999) (stating that this court reviews the entire record for reversible error). Although this court granted Appellant the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, he has not done so. ¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and 13-4033(A) (2010). Finding no reversible error, we affirm Appellant s convictions and sentences. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 sustaining We review the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict against Appellant. and resolve all reasonable inferences See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994). ¶4 On June 25, 2008, a grand jury issued an indictment charging Appellant with possession of a dangerous drug, (methamphetamine) a class four felony, and possession of drug 2 paraphernalia, a class (2010), -3415 (2010). 1 had four probation historical for six felony. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3407 The State later alleged that Appellant prior another felony felony convictions at the time of and was on the present offenses. ¶5 At trial, the State presented the following evidence: On June 15, 2008, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Deputy Bentley of the Yavapai County Sheriff s Office observed towards Prescott Valley on Highway 69. over, Deputy Bentley noticed three a car speeding While pulling the car individuals in the car, including an individual (Appellant) in the backseat who had been making furtive, suspicious movements before the vehicle came to a stop. Deputy Bentley first spoke with the driver of the car, the front seat passenger s boyfriend, who produced a suspended driver s license. Deputy Bentley spoke passenger, who was the owner of the car. to the front seat Appellant was in the backseat, and he appeared to be very nervous. ¶6 After Deputy Bentley called for assistance, he removed the driver from the vehicle and placed him under arrest for driving on a suspended license. Deputy vehicle. Bentley removed After Deputy Dannison arrived, Appellant from the backseat of the Before checking Appellant s pockets, Deputy Bentley 1 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have occurred. 3 asked Appellant if he had anything on his person that . . . would hurt or injure me because he noticed a .380 automatic live round resting in Appellant s left ear. Deputy Bentley searched Appellant s pockets, and found a purple string, a cap to a hypodermic needle, and another .380 handgun round. ¶7 After Appellant, finding Deputy the Bentley vehicle for a weapon. two then rounds searched of the ammunition backseat of on the Deputy Bentley found a to-go Styrofoam food box that contained a black and white pouch tied shut with a piece of purple string. The string appeared to match the one that had been found in Appellant s front pocket. looked into syringes. the pouch, and saw the plunger caps to three The deputy asked Appellant whether he knew about the contents of the pouch and whether it was his. ownership. matching Deputy Bentley Deputy string, Bentley but confronted Appellant again Appellant denied Appellant denied about ownership. the The deputy placed Appellant under arrest. ¶8 vehicle Deputy before Bentley again Bentley having looked and it Deputy towed. through the 4 Dannison During black and inventoried inventory, white the Deputy pouch, and discovered that it contained the three syringes, bindles, 2 and some powdered substance later confirmed to be a useable quantity of methamphetamine. needles, a The deputies found additional hypodermic digital scale, and other drug paraphernalia throughout the backseat area, as well as a cell phone that was not claimed by any passenger. At the jail, Deputy Bentley spoke with Appellant again about all the items found in the car, and Appellant again denied ownership. ¶9 The jury found Appellant guilty as charged. At sentencing, the trial court determined that Appellant had four historical prior felony convictions and present offenses while on probation. Appellant years to concurrent, imprisonment ( ADOC ) for imprisonment in the possession in ADOC slightly of for committed the The trial court sentenced aggravated Arizona a had terms Department dangerous possession drug of of eleven Corrections and drug of four years paraphernalia. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. ANALYSIS ¶10 We have reviewed error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict, and 2 A bindle is a descriptive term used by the police to signify a small container - such as a plastic bag or a pouch sometimes used to carry illegal substances or paraphernalia. 5 the sentence was within the statutory limits. Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. were conducted in compliance with his The proceedings constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶11 After obligations appeal have filing pertaining ended. of this to decision, Appellant s Counsel need do defense counsel s representation no more than in this inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. for See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. III. CONCLUSION ¶12 Appellant s convictions and sentences are affirmed. _______________/S/___________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge CONCURRING: ____________/S/________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge ___________/S/______________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge 6

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.