STATE OF ARIZONA v. JOSE JESUS MENDEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOSE JESUS MENDEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0242 Filed January 9, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR201701782 The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Rosemary Gordon Pánuco, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MENDEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Following a jury trial, appellant Jose Mendez was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug for sale (methamphetamine), possession of narcotic drug (heroin), and possession of drug paraphernalia. Mendez admitted to having more than two historical prior felony convictions, and the trial court sentenced him, as a category three repetitive offender, to presumptive, concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which is 15.75 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 (App. 1999). Consistent with Clark, she has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record,” 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, and states she is “unable to find any unresolved non-frivolous issue to raise on appeal.” She asks this court to “independently review[] the record” in accordance with those authorities. Mendez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining Mendez’s convictions, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. See A.R.S. §§ 133401(6)(c)(xxxviii), (20)(ttt), & (21)(m); 13-3407(A)(2); 13-3408(A)(1); 133415(A). After receiving information that a red Chevrolet truck would be bringing drugs to a local motel, Casa Grande police detectives watched the parking lot and saw Mendez exit such a vehicle carrying a small lockbox. Mendez put the box down near the motel lobby and told a detective, “Do whatever you want,” stating the box did not belong to him.1 A drugcertified K-9 alerted to the box, which contained a black canister holding 1Mendez also denied knowledge of the contents of the box. But when asked if anything inside the box would have his fingerprints, Mendez acknowledged that they might be found on a butane canister. 2 STATE v. MENDEZ Decision of the Court two plastic bags of methamphetamine; 123 pills containing methamphetamine, apportioned into small plastic bags; some heroin; a butane torch; and additional plastic bags. Additionally, the sentences imposed by the trial court were within the statutory range authorized, see A.R.S. § 13-703(C), (J), and were properly imposed. ¶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 Mendez’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.
