STATE OF ARIZONA v. RACHEL ANN SMITH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RACHEL ANN SMITH, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0004 Filed July 10, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pinal County No. S1100CR201702198 The Honorable Delia Neal, Judge AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED COUNSEL Rosemary Gordon Pánuco, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. SMITH Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Chief Judge: ¶1 Rachel Smith was convicted after a jury trial of unlawful flight from law enforcement, endangerment, and driving with a drug or its metabolite in her body. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Smith on concurrent, three-year probation terms. ¶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 she has reviewed the record but found no “non-frivolous issue to raise on appeal” and asking this court to review the record for error. Smith has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶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. §§ 13-1201(A), 28-622.01, 28-1381(A)(3). In July 2017, Smith led police on a low-speed chase, during which she collided with a pursing police vehicle; testing of Smith’s blood drawn pursuant to a warrant showed the presence of methamphetamine. The terms of probation were lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(A), 13-902(A)(4), (5), 13-1201(B), 28-622.01, 28-1381(C). ¶4 The sentencing minute entry incorrectly stated Smith had been found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia and omitted her conviction for driving with a drug or its metabolite in her body. The sentencing transcript shows the trial court correctly recited Smith’s convictions and imposed a three-year term of probation for each. We correct the sentencing minute entry to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement. See State v. Ovante, 231 Ariz. 180, ¶ 38 (2013) (appellate court may correct written minute entry to reflect sentence intended by oral pronouncement). 2 STATE v. SMITH Decision of the Court ¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s convictions and the disposition as corrected. 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.
