STATE v. STEVENS
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. ) ) MEDINA ANN STEVENS, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 7/23/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0564 Department A Memorandum Decision (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Mohave County Cause Nos. CR2010-00309 CR2010-00766 The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Legal Advocate Kingman By Jill L. Evans, Appellate Defender Attorneys for Appellant ________________________________________________________________ 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 Medina Ann Stevens (defendant), after searching the entire record, 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 propria persona, and she has not done so. ¶2 This is a probation violation case, in which defendant was arrested in 2008 and in 2010 when methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found in her home. Defendant was tried for the 2010 charges, and the jury found her guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia possession of (methamphetamine) 1, dangerous drugs a class 6 (methamphetamine), felony, a class and 4 felony. ¶3 Following the conviction on the 2010 charges, defendant entered a stipulated guilty plea on the 2008 charges, and pled guilty to possession of (methamphetamine), and the possession (methamphetamine) charge was dismissed. drug of paraphernalia dangerous The court drugs suspended sentencing in both cases, placed defendant on three years of probation, ordered that she follow 1 sixteen uniform probation This conviction was later remanded back to the trial court in State v. Stevens, 1 CA-CR 10-0911 (App. 2012). Rather than retry defendant, the state dropped the charge. 2 conditions (conditions), complete 360 hours of community service, and pay a fine. ¶4 A petition to revoke her probation was filed in 2011 that alleged defendant violated multiple probation conditions. 2 The court held that the state had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant seven, nine, and ten. ¶5 revoked. violated conditions one, three, 3 At the disposition hearing, defendant s probation was Defendant was given mitigated, consecutive sentences of six months for each conviction, with 66 days of presentence incarceration credit on the first charge. Defendant timely appealed. ¶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. We find none. See Leon, 104 All of the 2 The petition alleged she violated conditions one (obey all laws), three (report to Adult Probation Department), seven (do not use illegal drugs), nine (submit to drug testing), ten (participate in counseling), and nineteen (complete 360 hours of community service). 3 Defendant was not present at the probation violation hearing, but the court proceeded in defendant s absence after ascertaining with defense counsel that defendant had been given adequate notice. The court found the defendant had tested positive for methamphetamine, had failed to report to the Adult Probation Department, to submit to drug testing, and to participate in counseling, and that she had kept unlicensed dogs. 3 proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. was adequately So far as the record reveals, defendant represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences imposed were within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant s counsel s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the which date of this decision in to proceed, if she so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶7 We affirm the convictions and sentences. /s/ __________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ __________________________________ KENT E. CATTANI, Judge /s/ __________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, 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.
