STATE OF ARIZONA v. LEOBARDO ARGIMIRO GARCIA

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. JULY 23 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LEOBARDO ARGIMIRO GARCIA, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2008-0417 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20072404 Honorable Frank Dawley, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Thomas Jacobs Tucson Attorney for Appellant E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. ¶1 A jury found appellant Leobardo Garcia guilty of three counts of selling cocaine base, a narcotic drug. He admitted he had committed these offenses while on community supervision for a previous offense and had three historical prior felony convictions. The trial court imposed presumptive prison terms of 15.75 years on each count, enhanced on the basis of Garcia s prior felony convictions, and ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. ¶2 Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969); and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), 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. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97. Stating that he has reviewed the record thoroughly without finding any arguable issue to raise on appeal, counsel asks us to search the record for fundamental error. Garcia has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that Garcia had sold crack cocaine on three occasions to police officers once to Officer Schur and twice to Officer Hearn. Both officers testified at trial and identified Garcia in court, as did a third training officer who had accompanied Hearn when she made both of her purchases from Garcia. ¶4 The record supports counsel s recitation of the facts and contains substantial evidence to support the jury s verdicts on each of the three counts of conviction. See A.R.S. 2 §§ 13-3401(5), (20)(z); 13-3408(A)(7), (B)(7).1 The sentences imposed were the correct presumptive, enhanced terms for Garcia s repetitive, class two felonies at the time he committed the offenses in April 2007. See 2005 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 188, § 1, former A.R.S. § 13-604(D). In reviewing the record pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have found no reversible error and no issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We therefore affirm Garcia s convictions and the sentences imposed. _______________________________________ PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: _______________________________________ J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge _______________________________________ GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Judge 1 The relevant provisions of § 13-3408 have not changed since Garcia committed the offenses. See 2005 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 187, § 20. 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.