STATE v. LOPEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JESUS MEDINA LOPEZ, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 15-0135 FILED 12-3-2015 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400CR201400364 The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office By Joseph T. Maziarz, Phoenix Counsel for Appellee Yuma Public Defender’s Office By Edward F. McGee, Yuma Counsel for Appellant STATE v. LOPEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined. T H O M P S O N, 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 Jesus Medina Lopez (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he 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 supplement brief in propria persona, but has not done so. ¶2 In March 2014, defendant’s mother reported to the police that defendant took money from her bank account without her consent. A San Luis police officer responded and questioned defendant in the front yard of his home. The officer noticed that defendant’s front pockets were bulky and conducted a pat down to search for weapons. The officer felt an object in defendant’s pocket and asked him if we would remove it. Defendant agreed and pulled out receipts from an ATM machine, several lighters, and a small plastic wrapping containing methamphetamine. The officer arrested defendant and read him his Miranda rights. Defendant later admitted to taking the money from his mother’s bank account, driving to Mexico, and buying beer and methamphetamine. ¶3 The state charged defendant with one count of possession of dangerous drugs, a class four felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia involving methamphetamine, a class six felony. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence and the statements he made to the officer, and the court held an evidentiary hearing to consider the motions. After the presentation of evidence, the court denied the motions. ¶4 Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to the court taking judicial notice of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. After a bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of possession of dangerous drugs. The court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on thirty-six months supervised probation, and imposed a $1,830 fine. 2 STATE v. LOPEZ Decision of the Court ¶5 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 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. ¶6 We affirm the conviction and sentence. : ama 3
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.
