STATE OF ARIZONA v. SHALMARIE TULK

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. SHALMARIE ANN TULK, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0054 Filed January 13, 2022 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Cochise County No. S0200CR201900012 The Honorable James L. Conlogue, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Robert J. Zohlmann, Tombstone Counsel for Appellant STATE v. TULK Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Espinosa concurred. E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Shalmarie Tulk was found guilty of illegally conducting an enterprise and conspiracy to commit sale or transportation for sale of methamphetamine and money laundering. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Tulk on concurrent probation terms, the longer of which is seven 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 potential legal issues on appeal” and asking this court to review the record for error. Tulk 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. §§ 13-1003(A), 13-2312(B), 13-2317, 13-3407(A). The evidence shows Tulk’s participation in a drug smuggling operation, largely grounded in her communication with the investigation’s primary target about drug transactions. The probation terms were lawfully imposed. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901(A), 13-902(A)(1), (2), 13-1003(D), 13-3407(B), 13-2312(D). ¶4 We have searched the record for reversible error and found none. Accordingly, we affirm Tulk’s convictions and the court’s disposition. 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.