STATE OF ARIZONA v. MATTHEW RENE OROZCO (pdf)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MATTHEW RENE OROZCO, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2022-0035 Filed July 28, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. S1100CR202100286 The Honorable Patrick K. Gard, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Czop Law Firm PLLC, Higley By Steven Czop Counsel for Appellant STATE v. OROZCO Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Vice Chief Judge Staring concurred. B R E A R C L I F F E, Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Matthew Orozco was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia (baggies). The trial court sentenced him to enhanced, presumptive, concurrent prison terms, the longer of which is 4.5 years. ¶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 he has reviewed the record and found “no arguable issues to present.” 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 this court to search the record for error. Orozco has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to affirming the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Miles, 211 Ariz. 475, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), the evidence is sufficient here, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6)(a)(xxxviii), 13-3407(A)(1), 133415(A). In February 2021, during a search of Orozco incident to his arrest on an unrelated warrant, a Pinal County Sherriff’s deputy found in Orozco’s sock two plastic baggies containing a crystalline substance. The substance was later determined to be methamphetamine. ¶4 The record also supports the trial court’s finding of one historical prior felony conviction. See A.R.S. § 13-105(22)(b). The sentence imposed is within the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-703(B), (I), 13-708, 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, we affirm Orozco’s convictions and sentences. 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.