State v. Levya

 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. ) ) JUAN ABUNDEZ LEYVA, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/13/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL No. 1 CA-CR 10-0798 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2009-007446-003 DT The Honorable Michael W. Kemp, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Tyrone Mitchell, P.C. By Tyrone Mitchell Attorney for Appellant Phoenix B R O W N, Judge ¶1 Juan Abundez Leyva appeals his convictions and sentences for one count of conspiracy to commit possession of marijuana for sale and one count of possession of marijuana for sale. Counsel for Leyva filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), advising that after searching the record on appeal, he was unable to find any arguable grounds for reversal. Leyva was granted the opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 Our obligation reversible error. is to review the entire record for State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). favorable to We view the facts in the light most sustaining the conviction reasonable inferences against Leyva. and resolve all State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. ¶3 Leyva was indicted on Count 1, conspiracy to commit possession of marijuana for sale, a class 2 felony, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 13-1003 (2010) 1 and Count 2, possession of marijuana for sale, a class 2 felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3405 (Supp. 2011). The following evidence was presented at trial. ¶4 In June 2009, members of the Glendale Police Department were conducting surveillance of a house for suspected drug activity. Leyva was seen 1 arriving at Absent material revision after the date offense, we cite the statute s current version. 2 the of house the as a alleged passenger in a Ford truck, which his accomplice was driving. After being inside the house for approximately fifteen minutes, the two men left. The accomplice was carrying a large plastic garbage bag, which he placed in the cab of the truck. A mobile surveillance team followed the truck and initiated a traffic stop. Leyva immediately ran from the truck, but was apprehended a short distance away and arrested. ¶5 At the police station, Leyva was rights and agreed to speak to an officer. 2 read his Miranda The officer testified that Leyva told him he and the accomplice worked together in the construction industry. The accomplice asked Leyva if he knew where he could buy about five to seven pounds of marijuana, and Leyva contacted someone he knew that was able to sell that quantity of marijuana. supposed to receive Leyva a also portion of indicated the that profits he was from the transaction. ¶6 the The jury found Leyva guilty on both counts and that State had proven beyond a reasonable marijuana weighed more than four pounds. doubt that the Leyva was sentenced to concurrent terms of nine and one-quarter year s imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently, and credited with 310 days of presentence incarceration credit. 2 This timely appeal followed. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). was conducted primarily in Spanish. 3 The interview ¶7 We have searched error and find none. the entire record for fundamental All of the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The record shows Leyva was present and represented by counsel at all pertinent stages of the proceedings, was afforded the opportunity to speak before sentencing, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits. Accordingly, we affirm Leyva s convictions and sentences. ¶8 Upon the filing of this decision, counsel shall inform Leyva of the status of the appeal and his options. Defense counsel has no further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds 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, 156-57 (1984). Leyva shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if he so desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. /s/ _________________________________ MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge /s/ ___________________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge 4

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.