STATE OF ARIZONA v. MAURICE DURSHANE DENNIS, JR.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MAURICE DURSHANE DENNIS JR., Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0084 Filed December 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR201703528 The Honorable Lawrence M. Wharton, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Michael Villarreal, Florence Counsel for Appellant STATE v. DENNIS Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred. B R E A R C L I F F E, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial in absentia, appellant Maurice Dennis Jr. was convicted of possession of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Dennis to an enhanced, presumptive, ten-year prison term. Counsel has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating he has reviewed the record and “has found no arguable issues on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Dennis 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. § 13-3407(A)(1). The evidence presented at trial showed that when an officer attempted to arrest Dennis, who had three historical prior felony convictions, he ran into a bedroom in an apartment and took off his jacket. Officers found a small bag of methamphetamine and a broken glass pipe in the room, and Dennis admitted to having gone to the room to “get rid” of them. We further conclude the sentence imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-3407(B)(1). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Dennis’s conviction and sentence 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.