STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEPHANIE DAWN RAMIREZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK 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 SEP 14 2010 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. STEPHANIE DAWN RAMIREZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0014 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20084971 Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED West, Christoffel & Zickerman, PLLC By Anne Elsberry Tucson Attorneys for Appellant H O W A R D, Chief Judge. ¶1 Appellant Stephanie Ramirez was convicted after a jury trial of transporting more than two pounds of marijuana for sale. The trial court sentenced her to a mitigated term of three years imprisonment. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing she has reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel has also 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. Id. We have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Ramirez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 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, along with reasonable inferences from the evidence, established Ramirez had been riding in an escort vehicle for a van that contained 324 pounds of marijuana when she attempted to help the van s driver evade pursuing law enforcement officers. ¶4 We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements necessary for Ramirez s convictions, and her sentences are within the authorized range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D), 13-3405(A)(4), (B)(11). 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. Accordingly, we affirm Ramirez s convictions and sentences. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.
