STATE v. GUTIERREZ-CASTANEDA
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. MUSIO FERNANDO GUTIERREZCASTANEDA, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. DIVISION ONE FILED: 1/31/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0223 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County Cause No. S1400CR201100462 The Honorable Lawrence C. Kenworthy Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Yuma County Public Defender s Office By Edward F. McGee, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant G E M M I L L, Judge Phoenix Yuma ¶1 Musio Casteneda ) Fernando appeals from Gutierrez-Casteneda his convictions and ( Gutierrezorder imposing probation for possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. Gutierrez-Casteneda s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), stating that he has searched the record and found no arguable question of law and requesting that this court examine the record for reversible error. Gutierrez-Casteneda was afforded the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We therefrom view the in the light convictions. facts and most all reasonable favorable to inferences sustaining the State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123, 124, ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 668, 669 (App. 2001). On March 28, 2011, Deputy Meyer of the Yuma County Sheriff s Office was patrolling a neighborhood near Date Avenue and Eighth Street in Yuma, Arizona. During his patrol, he noticed Gutierrez-Casteneda riding a bicycle across traffic lanes and decided to stop and advise him of the bicycle laws. When Deputy Meyers attempted to stop Gutierrez-Casteneda, he stood up on his bicycle pedals and began to pedal faster. 2 Gutierrez-Casteneda continued to ride to a dirt driveway despite Deputy Meyer s instruction to stop. When he came to the end of the dirt driveway, Gutierrez-Casteneda reached his hand into his left shirt pocket and threw an item to his left just fifteen feet from stopped Deputy his Meyer. bicycle, Shortly and after, Deputy Meyer Gutierrez-Casteneda placed him in hand restraints. ¶3 Deputy patrol vehicle deputy. appeared The to Meyer and escorted searched deputies have Gutierrez-Casteneda to the dirt another a yellow found been in the dirt driveway for Kodak only with container a short the that time. Deputy Meyer opened the container and found seven individually wrapped bundles of a white hard substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. under arrest. Deputy Meyer then placed Gutierrez-Casteneda The substance was transported to the Phoenix crime lab and screened as methamphetamine. ¶4 of On March 22, 2012, Gutierrez-Casteneda was convicted possession repetitive of class dangerous four drugs, felony; a and non-dangerous, possession of nondrug paraphernalia, a non-dangerous, non-repetitive class six felony. After considering the facts, circumstances, and applicable law, the court Casteneda found was that placed probation on was intensive appropriate. Gutierrez- probation thirty-six for months and ordered to pay certain fines, fees, and assessments 3 as conditions of his probation. DISCUSSION ¶5 Having considered defense counsel s brief and examined the record for reversible error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881, we find none. convictions and the The evidence presented supports the order of probation falls sentencing options and ranges permitted by law. within the As far as the record reveals, Gutierrez-Casteneda was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and these proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶6 684 Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, P.2d appeal 154, have 156-57 ended. (1984), counsel s Counsel need do obligations no more in than this inform Gutierrez-Casteneda of the disposition of the appeal and his future options, appropriate for unless counsel s submission petition for review. to review the Arizona reveals Supreme an issue Court by Gutierrez-Casteneda has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he desires, with a pro se motion for reconsideration or petition for review. CONCLUSION ¶7 The convictions and order 4 imposing probation are affirmed. ____/s/___________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ______/s/____________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge ______/s/____________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, 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.
