STATE v. PERALTA

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, v. RAUL ARMANDO PERALTA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant. ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 10/24/2013 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 13-0264 DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2012-144115-001 The Honorable Pamela Gates, Judge AFFIRMED Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge ¶1 Raul Armando Peralta ( Appellant ) appeals his conviction and placement on probation for possession or use of marijuana, Revised a class Statutes one misdemeanor, ( A.R.S. ) section in violation 13-3405(A)(1) of Arizona (West 2013) and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class one misdemeanor, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3415(A) (West 2013). 1 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 he has searched the record on appeal and found no arguable question of therefore error. law that requests is that not we frivolous. review the Appellant s record for counsel reversible See State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30, 2 P.3d 89, 96 (App. 1999). In addition, this court has allowed Appellant to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. ¶2 We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, 120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A). and A.R.S. §§ 12- Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 1 We cite the current Westlaw version of the applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred. 2 I. ¶3 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 In the early morning hours of August 18, 2012, two police officers observed a car run a red light in Phoenix at the intersection of Southern Avenue and Twenty-Fourth Street. officers signaled traffic stop. the driver to pull over, and The conducted a Before approaching the car, the officers trained three sets of lights on the stopped vehicle from their patrol car: the headlights, spotlights on the driver and passenger sides, and the take-down lights from the top row of lights. As the officers approached the car, they saw Appellant switch places with the passenger and detected the odor of marijuana emanating from the stopped vehicle. ¶4 One officer had Appellant step out of the car. Appellant exited, the officer observed him cup his As hand as though he was holding an object and then open his hand as though he was releasing his grasp on the object. After detaining Appellant and the other occupants of the vehicle, the officer searched the floor of the car and found on the front passenger side a plastic baggie with a small amount of marijuana. ¶5 While later seated in the back of the patrol car, Appellant saw the second officer seated in the front of the 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). 3 vehicle handle the plastic baggie, and Appellant admitted that the plastic baggie belonged to him. Appellant later claimed that seeing he made the admission without that the baggie contained marijuana. ¶6 At a bench trial held in April 2013, Appellant was convicted of possession or use of marijuana, a class one misdemeanor, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class one misdemeanor. At that time, the trial court placed Appellant on one-year probation. On April 15, 2013, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. ¶7 We 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 by counsel at critical stages of the proceedings and was given the opportunity to speak at sentencing. The proceedings were conducted in compliance with his constitutional and statutory rights and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 After obligations appeal have filing pertaining ended. of to this decision, Appellant s Counsel need 4 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 proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion for reconsideration or petition for review. III. ¶9 CONCLUSION Appellant s conviction and placement on probation are affirmed. _______________/S/___________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: _____________/S/___________________ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge ____________/S/____________________ JON W. THOMPSON, 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.