State v. Lee

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

RYAN WILLIAM LEE, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0486
FILED 5-26-2022

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CR202000446
The Honorable Billy K. Sipe, Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Linley Wilson
Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler
By Janelle A. McEachern
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. LEE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 This appeal is filed in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969). Counsel for Ryan
William Lee has advised this Court that counsel found no arguable
questions of law and asks us to search the record for fundamental error.
Lee was convicted of (1) possession of dangerous drugs for sale
(methamphetamine), a class 2 felony and (2) possession of drug
paraphernalia (methamphetamine), a class 6 felony. Lee was given an
opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona; he has not done
so.1 After reviewing the record, we affirm Lee’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the
verdicts and resolve all reasonable inferences against Lee. See State v.
Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230, ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 While investigating a separate incident involving Lee, police
officers found marijuana and drug paraphernalia in Lee’s possession.
Officers arrested and advised Lee of his constitutional right to the assistance
of counsel. During the resulting interview, Lee admitted to officers that he
had a large amount of methamphetamine in his bedroom locked inside a
safe.

¶4 Officers obtained a search warrant and executed it at Lee’s
home. Inside Lee’s bedroom, officers located a safe and pried it open. The

1 On April 7, 2022, Lee filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and
this court issued an order on April 11, 2022, noting Arizona Rule of
Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 32 did not permit a party to file a notice of
post-conviction relief in this court. The order further directed Lee to file a
pro se supplemental brief pursuant to Anders, and it extended his deadline
to do so. That extended deadline has passed without Lee making such a
filing.

2
 STATE v. LEE
Decision of the Court

safe contained a jar with a large amount of a white crystalline substance and
a jar with a green leafy substance, believed to be marijuana. The white
crystalline substance field-tested positive for methamphetamine and
weighed about 35 grams. Officers also located a large amount of small
baggies, commonly used to package drugs for sale.

¶5 Lee was charged by indictment with possession of dangerous
drugs for sale (methamphetamine), possession of marijuana, and
possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine). The marijuana
possession charge was later dismissed by the State.

¶6 A one-day jury trial was held. Lee, who was not in custody,
failed to attend his trial without good cause shown. Testimony was given
by a forensic scientist responsible for analyzing the methamphetamine and
the law enforcement officers who executed the search warrant. After the
prosecution’s evidence, Lee moved for a Rule 20 judgment of acquittal,
which the court denied. Following the conclusion of evidence, the jury
found Lee guilty of both counts as charged.

¶7 The superior court conducted the sentencing hearing in
compliance with Lee’s constitutional rights and Rule 26. After considering
arguments of counsel, and affording Lee the opportunity to address the
court (which he declined), the court sentenced Lee to a presumptive term
of ten years’ imprisonment for possession of dangerous drugs for sale and
a less than presumptive term of four months’ imprisonment for possession
of drug paraphernalia, to be served concurrently. Lee was given seventy-
seven days of presentence incarceration credit. Additionally, the court
imposed a fine of $1,835, a probation assessment of $20, and assessment fees
in the amounts of $13, $9, and $2.

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review Lee’s convictions and sentences for fundamental
error. See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). Counsel for
Lee has advised this court that after a diligent search of the entire record,
counsel has found no arguable question of law. We have read and
considered counsel’s brief and fully reviewed the record for reversible
error, see Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, and find none. All of the proceedings were
conducted in compliance with the Rules. So far as the record reveals,
counsel represented Lee at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentences
imposed were within the statutory limits. We decline to order briefing and
affirm Lee’s convictions and sentences.

3
 STATE v. LEE
Decision of the Court

¶9 Upon the filing of this decision, defense counsel shall inform
Lee of the status of the appeal and of his future options. Counsel has no
further obligations unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate
for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. See
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Lee shall have thirty days
from the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a pro per motion
for reconsideration or petition for review.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

4