STATE v. PARTEE

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. ) ) ANRE DION PARTEE, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 7/30/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CR 12-0620 Department A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for PublicationRule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. CR2012-111261-001 The Honorable William L. Brotherton, Jr., Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Phoenix By Terry J. Reid, Deputy Public 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 Anre Dion Partee (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 he has not done so. ¶2 In February 2012, Mesa Police Officer Clinton Bertola stopped defendant for jaywalking. After learning that defendant had an outstanding warrant, Officer Bertola arrested defendant and conducted a search of his person. During the search, Officer Bertola found a plastic bag containing marijuana inside defendant s jacket pocket, which defendant claimed belonged to his sister or girlfriend. While in the back of the patrol car, defendant spoke to his brother on his cell phone, stating that he got busted for having some bud, and that it was about ten grams worth. A forensics lab test later revealed the marijuana weighed 10.9 grams. ¶3 The state charged defendant with one count of possession or use of marijuana, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, both class six felonies. the state moved to designate both misdemeanors and to hold a bench trial. (A.R.S.) § 13-604(B) (2010). court granted the motion. counts Prior to trial, as class one See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Defendant did not object, and the On the first day of trial, defense 2 counsel requested a continuance in order to interview an undisclosed witness whom the defendant claimed was the actual possessor of the marijuana. The court denied the motion for continuance. ¶4 The court convicted defendant as charged. The court suspended the imposition of sentencing and placed defendant on twelve months of unsupervised probation for each offense, to run concurrently. ¶5 Defendant timely appealed. 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. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the 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 sentence imposed was 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 date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion petition for review. 3 for reconsideration or ¶6 We affirm the convictions and imposition of probation. /s/ ______________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ___________________________________ KENT E. CATTANI, 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.