State v. Rupp

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. STACY LEE RUPP, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 07-22-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0742 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-110693-001 DT The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender by Louise Stark, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 738 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Stacy Lee Rupp ( Defendant ) has advised us that after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief and has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 In February 2007, police received a complaint that a woman was trafficking drugs from her house. Officers observed Defendant leaving the house and followed her to a parking lot where they watched a man lean into Defendant s passenger window for about a minute before she drove away. The police continued to speeding. follow her before stopping her for Officers searched her car and discovered rolling papers, a scale, and plastic bags containing methamphetamine and marijuana. ¶3 dangerous Defendant was charged with sale or transportation of marijuana, drugs, a a class class six two felony; felony; paraphernalia, a class six felony. and possession possession or use of of drug Defendant testified at trial and admitted a prior felony conviction. ¶4 The jury found Defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of possession of dangerous drugs, a class four felony, 1 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 but not sale or transportation of dangerous drugs. She was also found guilty of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. ¶5 During the sentencing hearing, the State proved that she had two historical felonies. As a result, Defendant was sentenced to six years in prison for possession of dangerous drugs, and placed on supervised probation for two years for possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant was awarded seventy-nine days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶6 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶7 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. ¶8 Having searched error, we find none. the entire record for reversible All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record, as presented, reveals that Defendant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, imposed were within the statutory limits. 3 and the sentences CONCLUSION ¶9 After obligation to this decision represent has Defendant been in filed, this appeal counsel s has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal review and reveals Defendant s an issue future options, appropriate for unless submission Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d counsel s to the See State v. 154, 157 (1984). Defendant can, if she desires, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶10 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s convictions sentences. /s/ ___________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JOHN G. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 4 and

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.