STATE OF ARIZONA v. GRACIELA CASTRO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GRACIELA CASTRO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0394 Filed October 18, 2017 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR201601403 The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Rowley Long & Simmons PLLC, Mesa By Matthew S. Long Counsel for Appellant STATE v. CASTRO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Howard1 concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Graciela Castro was convicted of transportation of a dangerous drug for sale. The trial court sentenced her to a minimum, five-year prison term and ordered her to pay a fine of $150,000. Avowing he has found no arguably meritorious issue to raise on appeal, appointed 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), asking this court to review the record for fundamental error. Castro has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury’s verdict, State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that in May 2016, an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer stopped a vehicle in which Castro was the front-seat passenger for a windshield obstruction violation. The driver agreed to let the officer search the vehicle, leading to the discovery of eight pounds of methamphetamine under the rear passenger floorboard carpet. When questioned by police at the scene and later at the police station, Castro gave changing and inconsistent accounts about accompanying the driver from California to Tucson. We conclude substantial evidence supported Castro’s conviction, see A.R.S. §§ 13-301(2), 13-3401(36)(e), 13-3407(A)(7), and the sentence was lawful and was imposed properly, see A.R.S. §§ 13-801(A), 13-3407(E), (H). 1The Hon. Joseph W. Howard, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. 2 STATE v. CASTRO Decision of the Court ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575, 694 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm Castro’s conviction and sentence. 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.