State v. Walkney
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. NANCY PATRICIA WALKNEY, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 CA-CR 10-0562 1 CA-CR 10-0563 1 CA-CR 10-0564 (Consolidated) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07/26/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause Nos. CR2006-031338-002 SE, CR2007-144239-001 SE, CR2008-177728-01 DT (Consolidated) The Honorable Edward O. Burke, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, 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 Christopher Johns, 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 Counsel v. for Leon, 104 Defendant Ariz. Nancy 297, 451 Patricia P.2d 878 Walkney has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he 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 was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 Defendant informant. offered to sell drugs to a confidential The informant told Tempe Police Detective McCluskey about the planned sale, and both went to Phoenix to make the purchase. purchase Detective McCluskey, however, called off the planned and instead had Officer Espinoza stop Defendant s truck. ¶3 After the truck was stopped, Detective McCluskey arrived, and asked Defendant if she was carrying drugs. She denied having drugs but consented to a search of her truck. A police dog was walked around the truck, and it signaled to the presence of illegal drugs. methamphetamine residue, They searched and found a pipe with and a 1 scale. Defendant was then 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 arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia, searched, and a half ounce of methamphetamine was found in her pants. ¶4 warnings, Defendant and was she methamphetamine. taken then jail, to admitted read the Miranda 2 to using and selling She was subsequently charged with transporting a dangerous drug for sale, a class 2 felony; and possessing drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony. She was convicted by a jury as charged, and later sentenced to ten years in prison for the drug charge, 3 and one year for the drug paraphernalia charge, to be served concurrently. She was also given credit for 164 days of presentence incarceration. ¶5 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 134031, and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶6 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. 2 3 We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Because the offense involved methamphetamine, Defendant was sentenced pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-712(A) (2008), which imposes a minimum sentence of five years, presumptive sentence of ten years and a maximum sentence of fifteen years. She was not eligible for the minimum sentence, however, because she was on probation for a prior felony offense at the time of her arrest. See A.R.S. § 13-604.02(B) (2008). 3 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 this to represent obligation decision 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 to the See State v. 154, 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s convictions sentences. /s/__________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _______________________________ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ _______________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge 4 and
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.
