STATE OF ARIZONA v. ALFONSO VELARDE

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. ALFONSO VELARDE, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2021-0098 Filed April 11, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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 Pinal County No. S1100CR202100107 The Honorable Patrick K. Gard, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Czop Law Firm PLLC, Higley By Steven Czop Counsel for Appellant STATE v. VELARDE 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 Following a jury trial, appellant Alfonso Velarde was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on a three-year term of probation. 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 and has found no “arguable issues to present on appeal.” Counsel has asked us to search the record for error. Velarde has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶2 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts, see State v. Delgado, 232 Ariz. 182, ¶ 2 (App. 2013), the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s findings of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6); 13-3407(A)(1); 13-3415(A),(F)(2). The evidence presented at trial showed that during a search incident to his arrest on other charges, Velarde, who had been found competent to stand trial after proceedings pursuant to Rule 11, Ariz. R. Crim. P., was found to have a usable amount of methamphetamine wrapped in pieces of a plastic bag in his pocket. We further conclude the probationary term imposed is within the statutory limit. See A.R.S. §§ 13-901; 13-3407(B)(1),(C); 13-3415(A). ¶3 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for fundamental, reversible error and have found none. Therefore, Velarde’s convictions and term of probation 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.