STATE OF ARIZONA v. STEVE BRITO ORANTEZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. STEVE BRITO ORANTEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0132 Filed December 16, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20142008001 The Honorable Paul E. Tang, Judge The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Steven R. Sonenberg, Pima County Public Defender By Frank P. Leto, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. ORANTEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. M I L L E R, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Steve Orantez was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Orantez on concurrent three-year terms of probation. ¶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), asserting he has reviewed the record but found no arguable issue to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, he has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record” and asks this court to search the record for error. Orantez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdicts here. In April 2014, during a search of a home in which Orantez was staying, police officers found approximately a quarter gram of cocaine in two plastic baggies, which Orantez admitted belonged to him. A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(5), (20)(z); 13-3408(A); 133415(A), (F). The terms of his probation are authorized by statute and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(A), (B); 13-902(A)(4); 13-3401(36)(b); 13-3408(B)(1), (C); 13-3415(A). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental error and found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985) (Anders 2 STATE v. ORANTEZ Decision of the Court requires court to search record for fundamental error). Accordingly, we affirm Orantez’s conviction and disposition. 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.