STATE OF ARIZONA v. ROBERT RAY WHITE

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 JUL 15 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ROBERT RAY WHITE, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0448 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20104225001 Honorable Deborah Bernini, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC By Anne Elsberry H O W A R D, Chief Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 Appellant Robert White was convicted after a jury trial of possession of methamphetamine, possession of cocaine, and conducting a business or professional transaction without a required license. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent jail terms, the longest of which was one year. 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 record but found no arguable meritorious issues to raise on appeal and asking us to review the record for fundamental error. White has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdicts. See State v. Haight-Gyuro, 218 Ariz. 356, ¶ 2, 186 P.3d 33, 34 (App. 2008). In 2010, White performed or offered to perform a procedure on several women ozone therapy as a medical treatment using medical-grade oxygen without having the appropriate license to administer medical-grade oxygen. Cocaine and methamphetamine were found during a search of his home. This evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(5), (6)(a)(xxxiv), (20)(z); 13-3407(A)(1); 13- 3408(A)(1); 13-3706. ¶3 White s sentences are within the prescribed statutory range and were imposed lawfully. See A.R.S. §§ 13-702(D); 13-707(A)(2); 13-901(F), 13-901.01(A), (H)(4); 13-3407(B)(1); 13-3408(B)(1); 13-3706(B). The sentencing minute entry, however, provides that the fines, fees, assessments and/or restitution the court had imposed were reduced to a Criminal Restitution Order [CRO] . . . . But this court has determined that, based on A.R.S. § 13-805(C), the imposition of a CRO before the 2 defendant s probation or sentence has expired constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error. State v. Lopez, 231 Ariz. 561, ¶ 2, 298 P.3d 909, 909 (App. 2013), quoting State v. Lewandowski, 220 Ariz. 531, ¶ 15, 207 P.3d 784, 789 (App. 2009). Therefore, this portion of the sentencing minute entry is not authorized by statute. ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and found none save the improper criminal restitution order. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders requires court to search record for fundamental error). The criminal restitution order is vacated; White s convictions and sentences are otherwise affirmed. /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Michael Miller MICHAEL MILLER, Judge 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.