State v. Collon

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 ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) BRIAN COLLON, ) ) Appellant. ) ___________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/07/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH STATE OF ARIZONA, 1 CA-CR 09-0840 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2007-119543-001 SE The Honorable Helene F. Abrams,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, Maricopa County Public Defender by Spencer D. Heffel, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix W E I S B E R G, Judge ¶1 Brian Collon ("Defendant") appeals from his conviction and sentence imposed after a jury trial. Defendant's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 299, 451 P.2d 878, 880 (1969), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, he finds no arguable ground for reversal. This court granted Defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but none was filed. Counsel now requests that we search the record for fundamental error. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). ¶2 We have Finding no reversible error, we affirm. jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (AA.R.S.@) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 and, -4033 (A) (2010). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 We review the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Arredondo, 155 Ariz. 314, 316, 746 P.2d 484, 486 (1987). Defendant was indicted for possession or use of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), a Class 4 felony and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class 6 felony. State alleged historical prior felony convictions. trial, drugs Defendant and drug filed a motion paraphernalia on to the suppress ground Prior to evidence that The he of the did not consent to a search of his person or of items in his possession. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion. 2 ¶4 At trial, the following evidence was presented. On the night of March 25, 2007, Officer Ekren of the Mesa Police Department was on patrol. He noticed Defendant and a female riding their bicycles on the road; neither bike had the required head lights. The Defendant for asked, initiated identification Defendant possession. officer denied and having ran any a a traffic records drugs or stop, asked check. When weapons in his The officer asked Defendant if he would empty his pockets and Defendant voluntarily did so. ¶5 In Defendant s left pocket was a cigarette package containing two clear plastic baggies with a white crystal-like substance inside. Based on his training and experience, Officer Ekren believed the substance was methamphetamine. He seized the baggies and placed Defendant under arrest. Defendant told the officer female he had taken the drugs from his friend and intended to dispose of them. ¶6 A criminalist tested the substance in the baggies and determined each contained usable quantities of methamphetamine. After the State rested, the court granted Defendant s Rule 20 motion on the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. ¶7 Defendant testified that he had confiscated the drugs from his friend because she was a wreck from using drugs and that he wanted to help her. He stated he had planned to take 3 the drugs to a Circle K nearby and flush them down the toilet, but Officer Ekren stopped him before he had a chance to do so. He testified that he told the officer the drugs belonged to his friend, and not to him. ¶8 The jury convicted Defendant of possession or use of dangerous drugs. At sentencing, the State withdrew allegation of historical prior felony convictions. suspended Defendant s sentence, placed him on the The court four years intensive probation with six months of deferred jail time, and ordered him to pay the required fees, fines and surcharges. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. CONCLUSION ¶9 We have read and considered counsel's brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. 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, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Defendant had committed the offense, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. ¶10 After obligations the pertaining filing to of this Defendant=s 4 decision, representation counsel=s in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and of Defendant=s future options, unless counsel=s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 15657 (1984). On the court's own motion, Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a motion for reconsideration or petition for review in propria persona. ¶11 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant's conviction and sentence. /s/__________________________ SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge CONCURRING: /s/___________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge /s/___________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, 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.