STATE OF ARIZONA v. IRMA ALICIA HAIGHT-OLIVAS

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. DEC 11 2009 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. IRMA ALICIA HAIGHT-OLIVAS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2009-0025 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR-20030416 Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Robert J. Hirsh, Pima County Public Defender By Rebecca A. McLean V Ã S Q U E Z, Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 Appellant Irma Haight-Olivas was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a dangerous drug for sale, possession of marijuana for sale, and two counts of possession of a narcotic drug for sale, all in quantities above the threshold amount, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court found Haight-Olivas had one historical prior felony conviction and sentenced her to substantially mitigated, concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was 4.5 years. ¶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 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. Haight-Olivas 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 that members of a Drug Enforcement Agency task force searched Haight-Olivas s home pursuant to a warrant and discovered large quantities of methamphetamine, cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana, as well as scales and packaging commonly used in drug trafficking. 2 Substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements necessary for ¶4 Haight-Olivas s convictions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(5), (6)(b)(xiii), (20)(z), (36)(b), (c), (e), (h); 13-3407(A)(2), (B)(2), (D); 13-3408(A)(2), (B)(2), (D); 13-3415(B), and her sentences are within the range authorized. See A.R.S. § 13-703(B)(2), (I).1 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We therefore affirm Haight-Olivas s convictions and sentences. ______________________________________ GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Judge CONCURRING: _______________________________________ PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge _______________________________________ J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 1 These sentencing provisions are materially the same as those in effect in 2006, when Haight-Olivas committed these offenses. See 1993 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 255, § 12. 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.