STATE OF ARIZONA v. MICHAEL JEROME SMITH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL JEROME SMITH, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0038 Filed June 15, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pinal County No. S1100CR201501764 The Honorable Bradley M. Soos, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Lynn T. Hamilton, Mesa Counsel for Appellant STATE v. SMITH Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Miller concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Chief Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Michael Smith was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court found he had two or more historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him to enhanced, concurrent, presumptive prison terms, the longer of which is ten years. ¶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), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d at 97, she has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record,” and she asks this court to search the record for error. Smith has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. ¶3 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining Smith’s convictions, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), and conclude sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdicts. See A.R.S. §§ 13-3407(A)(1), 13-3415(A). On the evening of June 5, 2015, a Florence police officer initiated a traffic stop after seeing Smith, who was the subject of an active arrest warrant, illegally driving an all-terrain vehicle on city streets. Smith was arrested, and a packet of methamphetamine and a methamphetamine pipe were found on his person during a search incident to his arrest. We further conclude Smith’s sentences were authorized by statute and were properly imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13703(C), (J), 13-3407(B)(1), 13-3415(A). 2 STATE v. SMITH Decision of the Court ¶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 Smith’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.