State v. Mohamed

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. MOHAMUD MOHAMED, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/31/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 10-0093 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2009-149067-001 DT The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, 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 Terry J. Reid, 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) (1969). and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 Counsel for Defendant Mohamud Mohamed 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 has not taken the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. FACTS 1 ¶2 Defendant domestic violence was arrested matter. He on was July 19, searched 2009, incident for to a the arrest, and the police discovered a clear plastic bag containing a green substance in his right front pants pocket. Defendant was subsequently charged with assault and disorderly conduct, both class one misdemeanors, and possession of marijuana, a class six felony. ¶3 After Defendant requested that the felony marijuana possession charge be severed from the other misdemeanor charges, the State designated the possession of marijuana charge as a class 1 misdemeanor. January 12, 2010, and The case proceeded to a bench trial on the State 1 dismissed the assault and 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 disorderly conduct charges without prejudice prior to the underlying facts of the presentation of evidence. ¶4 The State presented the arrest, as well as the testimony of a forensic scientist that the green leafy substance was marijuana in a useable quantity. Defendant, who was from Somalia, testified that the Somali culture allows for people to commingle clothes at a house they are visiting. As he was trying to leave the house in haste, he believed he put on a pair of pants that may have belonged to someone else at a family wedding and was unaware of the green leafy substance in the pocket. ¶5 The trial court weighed the credibility of the witnesses and found Defendant guilty of possession of marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the defense agreed that there was no reason to delay sentencing, the court proceeded. After finding that the conviction was Defendant s first drug possession conviction, his sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for one year. ( A.R.S. ) § 13-901.01 (2010). See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Defendant filed an appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). 3 DISCUSSION ¶6 We have read and considered counsel s brief. We have searched the entire record for reversible error, and found none. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was The record, as presented, reveals that represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶7 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 154, to the See State v. 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 ¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s conviction and sentence. /s/ _____________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JOHN G. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, 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.