STATE OF ARIZONA v. EULANDAS FLOWERS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EULANDAS J. FLOWERS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0124 Filed August 13, 2019 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201500924 The Honorable Steven J. Fuller, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. FLOWERS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Eulandas Flowers was convicted on three counts of promoting prison contraband. The trial court sentenced him to presumptive, concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling 11.5 years. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record and has found no “arguable issues on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for fundamental error. ¶2 In a supplemental, pro se petition Flowers argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his challenge to the warrant for a search of his person and denied him due process by preventing him from “presenting his defense.” ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-2501, 13-2505(A)(3). The evidence presented at trial showed Flowers, who had a historical prior felony conviction and was confined in a correctional facility, was found with various items including two cell phones, marijuana, and a knife in his rectum. We further conclude the sentences imposed are within the statutory limits. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(I), 13-2505(G). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error, including error related to the issues raised by Flowers, and have found none. Therefore, Flowers’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 2

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.