STATE v. FLYNN

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. SARAH PORTIA FLYNN, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/21/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-CR 12-0018 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-119784-001 DT The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenBerg, Judge Pro Tempore 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 Charles R. Krull, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 This is 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 Defendant Sarah Portia Flynn 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 that we conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 Defendant was arrested at WestWorld on March 4, 2011, during the Parada del Sol rodeo. Before she was transported to jail, a Scottsdale police officer searched her coat and purse for weapons or contraband. In her purse, he discovered a small silver canister with a tinfoil top. The canister contained a green then leafy substance. The officer Miranda 2 warnings and interviewed her. read Defendant her She indicated that it was her boyfriend s paraphernalia and medical marijuana. ¶3 Defendant was indicted for possession of marijuana, a class 6 felony. She filed a motion to suppress the marijuana found in her purse, and the court held an evidentiary hearing to consider the motion on December 9, 2011. After the presentation of evidence, the motion to suppress was denied. 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and resolve all reasonable inferences against the defendant. State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 588-89, 951 P.2d 454, 463-64 (1997) (citation omitted). 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 ¶4 At the beginning of the trial, the State successfully moved to amend the indictment to designate the matter as a class 1 misdemeanor, and the matter proceeded as a bench trial. After the State put on its case, and after closing arguments, the court found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. the presentence report unsupervised probation. ¶5 We have of the class 1 misdemeanor Defendant waived the preparation of and was placed on one year of She was also ordered to pay a fine. 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), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1) (West 2012). DISCUSSION ¶6 We have read and considered the opening brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. ¶7 settlement After the We find none. indictment, conference and See Leon, 104 opted Defendant to go to participated trial in in lieu a of completing a drug diversion program and having the misdemeanor charge dismissed. Although she unsuccessfully challenged the search of her purse, she did not challenge the reduction of the charge to a misdemeanor, or the bench trial. The record, as presented, reveals that all of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, that 3 Defendant was proceedings, represented and that by the counsel sentence at all imposed stages was of the within the statutory limits. ¶8 After this decision is filed, counsel need only inform Defendant of the status of her appeal and her future options, unless counsel identifies an issue appropriate for a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d 154, 157 (1984). desired, file a motion for reconsideration Defendant may, if or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. CONCLUSION ¶9 Defendant s conviction and sentence are affirmed. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _____________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge /s/ _____________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, 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.