State v. Reaves

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, v. JOHN REAVES, ) ) Appellee, ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/14/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0820 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2007-171949-001 SE The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, 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 Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix W I N T H R O P, Judge ¶1 John Reaves ( Appellant ) appeals from his convictions for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia and from his placement on probation. 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 he has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. 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 placement on probation. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining 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 January 27, 2009, Appellant was charged by information with two counts: the first for possessing or using marijuana, for and the second 2 possessing or using drug paraphernalia. 13-3405 (2010), -3415 (2010). 1 See A.R.S. §§ Both charges were later designated class one misdemeanors. The case proceeded to a bench trial on August 21, 2009. ¶5 At trial, Tempe Police Officer Timothy Spruyt testified that on March 10, 2007, he stopped a truck for failing to maintain a single lane. front passenger seat. occupants had Appellant. any The Appellant was sitting in the truck s The officer checked whether the truck s outstanding officer warrants arrested incident to that arrest. and Appellant found and one for searched him The search revealed a green leafy substance and pipes with burnt residue in the right front pocket of Appellant s could be used pants. to The ingest officer drugs, and testified a that the criminalist pipes from the Arizona Department of Public Safety testified that the substance was a usable quantity of marijuana. Appellant chose not to testify on his behalf. ¶6 charged. Appellant The court found Appellant guilty of both crimes as It to suspended serve two sentence years on both probation. counts and Appellant ordered filed a timely notice of appeal. 1 We cite the current version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have occurred. 3 II. ANALYSIS ¶7 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 Appellant s limits. placement on probation fell within the statutory Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at the sentencing hearing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations appeal have pertaining ended. to Appellant s Counsel need do 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 reconsideration or petition for review. 4 pro per motion for III. CONCLUSION ¶9 Appellant s convictions and placement on probation are affirmed. _____________/S/_____________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge CONCURRING: ______________/S/__________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge _____________/S/___________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, 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.