STATE OF ARIZONA v. INELDA ENIS
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 FILED BY CLERK FEB 17 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. INELDA ENIS, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2010-0287 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20092892001 Honorable Charles S. Sabalos, Judge AFFIRMED Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex Heveri Tucson Attorneys for Appellant V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Following a two-day jury trial, appellant Inelda Enis was convicted of two counts of sale of a dangerous drug, specifically, Phencyclidine (PCP), class two felonies. See A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(7). Enis admitted to having a non-historical prior felony conviction, and the trial court sentenced her to concurrent, mitigated, four-year prison terms, with credit for thirty-four days served. 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), stating she has reviewed the entire record and has found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Enis has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury s findings of guilt. See State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999). The evidence presented at trial showed that, on two occasions in November 2008, Enis met another individual and an undercover police officer at designated locations and provided PCP to the individual in the presence of the officer. The other individual then gave the PCP to the officer in exchange for the payment of money. We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limits. ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Enis s convictions and sentences. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, 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.
