STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSEPH M. COOPER

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. SEP 24 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSEPH M. COOPER, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2008-0413 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL COUNTY Cause No. CR200600542 Honorable Boyd T. Johnson, Judge AFFIRMED Harriette P. Levitt Tucson Attorney for Appellant E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Appellant Joseph Cooper was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the additional charges of manslaughter, aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), and aggravated driving with a drug or its metabolite in his body, and the trial court declared a mistrial as to those offenses. Cooper subsequently agreed to resolve those charges by pleading guilty to an amended charge of negligent homicide and aggravated DUI. The court sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment for the negligent homicide and aggravated DUI convictions, the longer of which was 2.5 years. And, it placed him on concurrent terms of supervised probation for possession of a dangerous drug, possession of drug paraphernalia, and aggravated DUI, the longest of which was four years, to be served consecutively to the 2.5-year prison term. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing she has reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. In compliance with Clark, counsel has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record. 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97. Cooper has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established Cooper was apparently thrown from his vehicle after it had gone off the road into a ditch. As he was being transferred for medical care, an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer looked in Cooper s wallet for 2 identification and discovered a small plastic bag containing a crystalline substance later determined to be methamphetamine. ¶4 Substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements necessary for Cooper s convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3407(A)(1), 13-3415(A), and the terms of probation ordered by the trial court are within the contemplation of A.R.S. § 13-902(A)(3), (4). We have reviewed the record pursuant to Anders and have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. We therefore affirm Cooper s convictions and dispositions. _______________________________________ PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: _______________________________________ GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Judge _______________________________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Judge* *The Honorable Ann A. Scott Timmer, Chief Judge of Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals, is authorized to participate in this appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120(F) (2003). 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.