STATE OF ARIZONA v. CHARLES ARTHUR CAGLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHARLES ARTHUR CAGLE, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0200 Filed April 19, 2016 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20123720001 The Honorable Danelle B. Liwski, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL West, Elsberry, Longenbaugh & Zickerman, PLLC, Tucson By Anne Elsberry Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CAGLE 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, appellant Charles Cagle was convicted of multiple counts of weapons misconduct and possession of methamphetamine for sale and one count each of involving a minor in a drug offense and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The trial court found he had two historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him to enhanced, presumptive prison terms, some concurrent and some consecutive, totaling 62.75 years. ¶2 Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), avowing she has reviewed the record and has found no “arguable, meritorious issues” to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided a factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, and she asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. Cagle has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdicts. In June 2012, a fifteen-year-old boy let undercover law enforcement officers into Cagle’s apartment, where Cagle, who was armed with a handgun, sold methamphetamine to one of the officers. The same undercover officer returned to the apartment twice in September 2012 to make additional purchases. Cagle was armed with a handgun during both visits and sold the officer methamphetamine on one occasion and, on both occasions, sold the officer guns, including a sawed-off shotgun and a sniper rifle. Cagle also agreed that he and his “crew” would assist the undercover officer in a home-invasion robbery, and he said he had made the 2 STATE v. CAGLE Decision of the Court sawed-off shotgun to “shoot [the] doors open” for that crime. Later that month, police officers executed a search warrant at the apartment and recovered additional methamphetamine and firearms. Cagle has at least two prior felony convictions. We further conclude Cagle’s sentences are authorized by statute and were imposed in a lawful manner. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C) and (J); 131003; 13-3102 (A)(3), (4), (8), and (14); 13-3407(A)(2); 13-3409(A)(1). ¶4 In our examination of the record, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Cagle’s convictions and sentences. 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.
