STATE OF ARIZONA v. RAPHAEL GASTELUM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. RAPHAEL MATTHEW GASTELUM, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0169 Filed April 15, 2021 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR201702796 The Honorable Christopher J. O’Neil, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. GASTELUM Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Espinosa authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. E S P I N O S A, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Raphael Gastelum was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, enhanced, and partially mitigated prison terms, the longer of which was 9.5 years.1 ¶2 On appeal, 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 was unable to find any “arguable issues” to raise. Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 30, counsel has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record,” and has asked us to search the record for error. Gastelum has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming 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), 13-3407(A)(1), 13-3415(A), (F)(2). One morning in September 2017, a narcotics detective with the Casa Grande Police Department was patrolling the “highest drug area” in the city when he observed Gastelum walking down an alleyway and started following him. After Gastelum saw the detective, he threw from his pocket onto the ground a rolled-up paper towel containing a baggie of methamphetamine and a pipe used to smoke methamphetamine. 1 Although Gastelum absconded and delayed sentencing for more than ninety days after trial, see A.R.S. § 13-4033(C), the court made no finding that Gastelum had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, see State v. Raffaele, 249 Ariz. 474, ¶ 15 (App. 2020). We therefore have jurisdiction pursuant to § 13-4033(A)(1). 2 STATE v. GASTELUM Decision of the Court ¶4 The record also supports the trial court’s finding of at least two historical prior felony convictions. The sentences imposed are within the statutory ranges. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(C), (J), 13-3407(B)(1), 13-3415(A). ¶5 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, prejudicial error and have found none. See State v. Fuller, 143 Ariz. 571, 575 (1985). Accordingly, Gastelum’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 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.
