STATE OF ARIZONA v. ALBERT EDWARD MORELLI, JR.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ALBERT EDWARD MORELLI JR., Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0078 Filed May 4, 2020 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pima County No. CR20171207001 The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MORELLI Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. S T A R I N G, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Albert Morelli Jr. was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, all while on release for a pending felony charge. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms, the longest 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 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record but found no “arguable legal issues to raise on appeal” and asking this court to review the record for error. Morelli has filed a supplemental brief listing several claims, including that the state’s allegation that he had been on release at the time of his offenses was untimely, that the time limits of Rule 8, Ariz. R. Crim. P., were exceeded, that his trial counsel had been ineffective, that a witness had not been properly disclosed, and that there had been errors at sentencing. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6)(c)(xxxviii), 13-3405(A)(1), 13-3407(A)(1), 13-3415(A). In March 2017, a deputy sheriff found Morelli asleep while parked on a roadside; as Morelli stepped out of the car after the officer woke him, the officer saw a “methamphetamine smoking pipe sticking out of his right front pocket.” After Morelli admitted there was methamphetamine in the car, the deputy searched the vehicle, finding 2.62 grams of methamphetamine, 7.37 grams of marijuana, and additional paraphernalia. Morelli was on release for a pending felony charge at the time of his arrest. ¶4 Sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Morelli had numerous previous felony convictions, including four for aggravated driving under the influence. His sentences are within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-708(D), 13-3405(B)(1), 2 STATE v. MORELLI Decision of the Court 13-3407(B)(1), 13-3415(A). We have reviewed the issues Morelli identifies in his supplemental brief. His claim that trial counsel was ineffective must be raised in a post-conviction proceeding. See State v. Spreitz, 202 Ariz. 1, ¶ 9 (2002). His remaining claims are not arguable issues requiring further briefing. See State v. Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, ¶ 3 (App. 2012). ¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we searched the record for reversible error, including the purported errors Morelli identified in his supplemental brief, and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Morelli’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.
