STATE v. BRUNICK

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. ) ) MICHAEL JAMES BRUNICK, ) ) Appellant. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 1/31/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 11-0853 DEPARTMENT S MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2011-103193-001 The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona 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 Cory Engle, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix W I N T H R O P, Chief Judge ¶1 conviction Michael and James sentence (methamphetamine). Brunick for ( Appellant ) possession of appeals dangerous his drugs Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that she has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous. We reversible error. 2 P.3d Appellant 89, 96 the therefore review the entire record for See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, (App. 1999). opportunity to Although file a this court supplemental granted brief in propria persona, he has not done so. ¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (West 2012), 1 13-4031, and 13-4033(A). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. I. ¶3 On March FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 24, 2011, the State charged Appellant by information with one count of possession or use of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine), a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3407. Before trial, the State alleged Appellant had 1 We cite the current Westlaw version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 2 We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and resolve all reasonable inferences against Appellant. See State v. Kiper, 181 Ariz. 62, 64, 887 P.2d 592, 594 (App. 1994). 2 seven historical prior felony convictions and other aggravating circumstances that could increase his potential sentence. ¶4 On At trial, the State presented the following evidence: January 19, 2011, a Glendale police officer in a marked patrol car observed a vehicle driven by Appellant run a red light at 59th Avenue and Bell Road. traffic stop and eventually The officer initiated a arrested Appellant, the occupant of the vehicle, due to an outstanding warrant. sole During a search incident to arrest, the officer found two small baggies containing a white substance in Appellant s pocket. ¶5 The station After and officer advised transported Appellant him his that acknowledging of rights he understood to the police to Miranda. 3 rights, Appellant pursuant his admitted the substance in the baggies was methamphetamine and that it belonged to him for personal use. Subsequent laboratory testing confirmed the substance as methamphetamine. ¶6 Appellant did not testify at trial. He did, however, produce a witness who claimed the methamphetamine belonged to her and that she had previously placed it in Appellant s vehicle. ¶7 The jury found Appellant guilty as charged. sentencing, Appellant admitted which used determining 3 were in two prior his felony sentence. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 Before convictions, The court sentenced Appellant to a slightly mitigated (minimum) term of eight years imprisonment Corrections, with incarceration. in credit for We Arizona 35 days Department of of presentence Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. ¶8 the have reviewed ANALYSIS error and find none. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881; Clark, 196 Ariz. at 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d at 96. The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict, and the sentencing proceedings followed the statutory requirements. Appellant was represented was by given counsel the at all stages opportunity to of the speak at proceedings and sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶9 After obligations appeal have filing pertaining ended. of to this decision, Appellant s Counsel need do defense counsel s representation no more than in this inform Appellant of the status of the appeal and of his future options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. for See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). Appellant has thirty days from the date of this decision to 4 proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. III. ¶10 CONCLUSION Appellant s conviction and sentence are affirmed. _______________/S/_______________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Chief Judge CONCURRING: _______________/S/_________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge ______________/S/__________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, 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.