STATE OF ARIZONA v. EDEL PAEZ IBARRA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND M AY 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. AUG -6 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDEL PAEZ IBARRA, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2008-0392 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20074161 Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge AFFIRMED Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Stephan J. McCaffery Tucson Attorneys for Appellant E S P I N O S A, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Appellant Edel Ibarra was charged by indictment in October 2007 with two, class two felonies: transporting more than two pounds of marijuana and involving or using minors in a drug offense. The first count of the indictment was later amended by stipulation to charge him with transporting the marijuana for sale. His first trial in April 2008 ended in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. After a retrial in October 2008, the eight-person jury found him guilty of transporting the marijuana for sale but not guilty of involving or using minors in the offense. The trial court sentenced him to a substantially mitigated, three-year prison term. ¶2 Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), substantially complying with Clark by setting forth a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so that] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record. 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97. Counsel states he has reviewed the entire record without finding any meritorious issue for appeal and asks us to search for reversible error. Ibarra has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 We have examined the record pursuant to our obligation under Anders and have found it contains substantial evidence supporting each element necessary to the jury s verdict. At trial, the defense stipulated that the bundled substance was marijuana. Expert testimony established that the total quantity of the marijuana, 341 pounds, was an amount consistent with sale rather than personal use and that the value of the marijuana was approximately $500 per pound, or $170,500. And both of the young occupants of the Pontiac testified that Ibarra had offered to pay them $3,000, or $1,500 apiece, for picking up the load 2 of marijuana and transporting it to Phoenix. In addition, Ibarra s substantially mitigated, three-year sentence is the term permitted by former A.R.S. § 13-702.01(B)(1)1 for a class two felony committed by a first-time offender when the court also finds as the trial court did here that at least two mitigating factors listed in [A.R.S.] § 13-702, subsection D apply. Having searched the record for error and found none, we affirm Ibarra s ¶4 conviction and sentence. _______________________________________ PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: ____________________________________ JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge ____________________________________ JOHN PELANDER, Judge 1 The sentencing provisions in Arizona s criminal code have recently been renumbered, see 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 301, §§ 1-120, effective from and after December 31, 2008. Id. § 120. We refer in this decision to the statutes as they were numbered when Ibarra committed the offense on January 26, 2007. 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.
