STATE OF ARIZONA v. GARRICK SOLOMON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GARRICK SOLOMON, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0275 Filed August 5, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20181248001 The Honorable Javier Chon-Lopez, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL James Fullin, Pima County Legal Defender By Alex D. Heveri, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. SOLOMON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. E S P I N O S A, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Garrick Solomon was convicted of promoting prison contraband. The trial court sentenced him to a “partially mitigated” prison term of seven 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 found no “meritorious issue to raise on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Solomon has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 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 finding of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-2501(1), (2)(a), 13-2505(A)(3), 13-3401(20)(ttt), (21)(m). The evidence presented at trial showed that Solomon, who was incarcerated in state prison, was found in possession of a plastic-wrapped ball containing ten bindles of heroin. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-711(B), 13-2505(G). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Solomon’s conviction and sentence are therefore 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.