STATE OF ARIZONA v. RUSSELL C. CLARK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY 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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RUSSELL C. CLARK, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FILED BY CLERK JUL 16 2010 CO COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO 2 CA-CR 2010-0011 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY Cause No. CR200800724 Honorable James L. Conlogue, Judge AFFIRMED Hamilton Law Office By Lynn T. Hamilton Mesa Attorneys for Appellant K E L L Y, Judge. ¶1 Following a jury trial conducted in his absence, Russell Clark was convicted of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a class six felony, possession of marijuana, a class six felony, and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon as a prohibited possessor, class four felonies. The trial court found Clark had two or more historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive terms of imprisonment, the longest of which was ten years. Clark appealed, and counsel has filed a brief in compliance with 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), stating she has reviewed the record and found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. She asks this court to review the record for error. Clark has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Based on reports of drug activity at the home where Clark was living, Cochise County Detective Curtis Wilkins conducted a knock-and-talk investigation. Clark permitted Wilkins to walk around the house. When Clark showed Wilkins his bedroom, the officer noticed two glass pipes he recognized as items used for ingesting drugs. Wilkins then secured a search warrant, and found a loaded rifle, a plastic bag containing a white crystalline residue, and another plastic bag containing marijuana. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court imposed sentences within the statutory ranges established for the offenses. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Clark s convictions and the sentences imposed. /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge 2
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.
