State v. Supernaw
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. ) ) DONALD CRAIG SUPERNAW, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CR 11-0013 DIVISION ONE FILED: 11/22/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL Department D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Mohave County Cause No. CR2009-00234 The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix John A. Pecchia, Mohave County Public Defender By Jill Evans Attorneys for Appellant Kingman T H O M P S O N, Presiding Judge ¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Donald Craig Supernaw (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 this court conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propia persona, and he has not done so. ¶2 Police executed a search warrant at defendant s home. Upon arriving at the scene, police spoke with defendant. After being read his rights, defendant said he knew why they were there and advised police he would cooperate as long as his wife wasn t charged. approximately Defendant one-half an advised ounce behind the dryer on his porch. the indicated location. of police that methamphetamine he had stuffed Police found methamphetamine in Defendant, who is unemployed and on disability, had over $1,000 in cash located on him. denied having drugs for sale. Defendant Police also located three digital scales, a glass pipe and other miscellaneous paraphernalia next to the dryer. The total weight of the methamphetamine located at the house was 19.22 grams or .67 of an ounce. ¶3 Defendant was charged with one count of possession of dangerous drugs for sale, a class 2 felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. was convicted of both counts after a jury trial. Defendant Defendant was found to have a prior felony conviction within the past ten 2 years for attempted possession of a dangerous drug for sale, a class 3 felony. Defendant was sentenced concurrently to an aggravated sentence of 11 years for the possession of dangerous drugs for sale and 1.5 years for possession of paraphernalia. Defendant received 29 days presentence incarceration credit. Defendant timely appealed. ¶4 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. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. 584-85, 684 P.2d Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. ¶5 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ ______________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge /s/ __________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge 3
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.
